Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http: //books .google .com/I
SarftarU College Eilirarg
rnOK
i
1
iki
0
The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel
AND OTHER
CRITICAL ESSAYS
SELECTED FROM THE PUBLISHED PAPERS
OF THE LATE
EZRA ABBOT
BOSTON
GEO. H. ELLIS. 141 FRANKLIN STREET
188S
H^rt^
)\ 00, n> '^
l^
/ V
• iviAR 22 IBbO
(^
/^a
i>..tf c
7
COPYRIGHT
BY CEO. H. ELLIS.
1 888.
Press of Geo. H. Eliis, 141 Franklin Street.
Ezra Abbot, eldest child of Ezra and Phebe (Abbot) Abbot, was
bom in Jackson, Waldo County, Maine, April 28, 1819; was fitted for
college at Phillips (Exeter) Academy ; graduated at Bowdoin College in
1840, and received its degree of A.M. in 1843; removed to Cambridge
in 1847; after some time spent in teaching, in pursuing private studies,
and in rendering service in the libraries of Harvard College and the
Boston Athenaeum, was appointed in 18^6 Assistant Librarian of Har-
vard College; and in 1872 Bussey Professor of New Testament Criti-
cism and Interpretation in the Divinity School.
He was elected in 1852 a member of the American Oriental Society,
and from 1853 its Recording Secretary; in 1861, a member of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences; in 1871 appointed University
Lecturer on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament ; in the same
year chosen a member of the New Testament Company for the revision
of our English Bible. He was also a member of the Society of Biblical
Literature and Exegesis, and of the Harvard Biblical Club.
In 1 861, he received from Harvard College the honorary degree of
A.M.; in 1869 that of LL.D. from Yale College, and the same from
Bowdoin College in 1878; in 1872 from Harvard College that of S.T.D. ;
and he was tendered the degree of D.D. by the University of Edin-
burgh at its recent tercentenary, but passed away before the date of the
celebration.
He died at his home in Cambridge at 5.30 p.m., on Friday, March
21, 1884.
PREFACE.
The present volume is issued in compliance with suggestions
coming from both sides of the Atlantic. Several of the essays it
contains appeared originally in publications not easily accessible,
yet embody results of the highest value to students of the New
Testament, whether in its textual or its historical aspects. Some
of them will be found to have received from the author, since their
first appearance, not a few minute perfecting touches, character-
istic of his punctilious and vigilant scholarship. In reading them,
it is important to note the date of composition (given at the
beginning of each), since it has not been found practicable always
to mention such supplementary or qualifying facts as the progress
of time has brought. Indeed, by far the larger portion of the
present volume was printed nearly two years ago ; and its publica-
tion has been delayed by causes over which the editor has had
little control. The chief infelicitous result of the delay, however,
appears in the fact that one or two additions — made somewhat
inconsistently, it must be confessed — have come in their turn
to need supplementing (see, for example, p. i66, note). All the
editor's annotations have been carefully distinguished from the
work of the author by being enclosed in square brackets ; but it
should be observed that matter thus enclosed in the midst of
quotations or translations is from the pen of Dr. Abbot himself.
Besides the elaborate discussions of debatable textual questions,
which render the volume indispensable to the professional student,
room has been found for a few of those papers in which Dr. Abbot
addresses general readers in a style alike lucid, attractive, and
authoritative. But, after all, to those privileged to know the
variety and extent of his learning, the retentiveness and accuracy
4 PREFACE
of his memory, the penetration and fairness of his judgment, this
volume will seem but an inadequate and fragmentary memorial.
The compass and special character of the essay upon the Fourth
Gospel have made the editor glad to avail himself of the separate
index to that part of the book courteously placed at his disposal by
Professor Huidekoper, of Meadville. This index, accordingly, is
not incorporated with that at the end of the volume.
In conclusion, special thanks are due, and are here publicly
given, to the several editors or proprietors of the publications in
which the essays were first printed, for the kind permission to
reproduce them in their present form.
J. H. Thayer.
Cambridge, Massachusetts,
July, 1888.
CONTENTS.
Page.
I. The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 9
II. The Distinction between airlu and fpwraw, 107 ■'
III. Ancient Papyrus and the Mode of making Paper from it, 137
IV. The Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican
Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, 140
V. The late Professor Tischendorf, 155
VI. The late Dr. Tregelles, 175
VII. Gerhard von Mastricht, 184
VIII. Buttmann's Greek Testament, 188
IX. Westcott and Hort*s Edition of the Greek Testament, 197
X. The New Testament Greek Text, 204
XI. The Gospels in the New Revision (three articles), . . . 215
XII. The Reading "only-begotten God," in John i. 18,. . . 241
XIII. The Reading "an only-begotten God," or "God only-
begotten," John i. 18, 272
XIV. The Text of John viii. 44, 286
XV. The Reading "Church OF God," Acts XX. 28, 294
XVI. The Construction of Romans ix. 5 332
XVII. Recent Discussions of Romans ix. 5, 411
XVIII. Titus ii 13 439
XIX. I John v. 7, and Luther's German Bible, 458
XX. The Verse-divisions in the New Testament, 464
PREFATORY NOTE TO THE FIRST ESSAY.
The following essay was read, in part, before the " Ministers' Insti-
tute," at its public meeting last October, in Providence, R.I. In con-
sidering the external evidences of the genuineness of the Gospel as-
cribed to John, it was out of the question, under the circumstances, to
undertake anything more than the discussion of a few important points ;
and even these could not be properly treated within the time allowed.
In revising the paper for the Unitarian Review (Februar)*, March,
June, 1880), and, with additions and corrections, for the volume of "In
stitute Essays," I have greatly enlarged some parts of it, particularly
that relating to the evidence that the Fourth Gospel was used by Justin
Martyr. The consideration of his quotations and of the hypotheses con-
nected with them has given occasion to the long Notes appended to the
essay, in which will be found the results of some original investigation.
But the circumstances under which the essay is printed have compelled
me to treat other parts of the evidence for the genuineness of this
Gospel less thoroughly than I wished, and on certain points to content
myself with mere references. It has also been necessary to give in a
translation many quotations which scholars would have preferred to see
in the original *, but the translation has been made as literal as the Eng-
lish idiom would permit, and precise references to the passages cited are
always given for the benefit of the critical student.
E. A.
Cambridge, Mass., May 21, 188a
I.
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL:
EXTERNAL EVIDENCES.
The problem of the Fourth Gospel — that is, the question of
its authorship and historical value — requires for its complete
solution a consideration of many collateral questions which
are still in debate. Until these are gradually disposed of by
thorough investigation and discussion, we can hardly hope
for a general agreement on the main question at issue.
Such an agreement among scholars certainly does not at
present exist. Since the "epoch-making" essay (to borrow
a favorite phrase of the Germans) of Ferdinand Christian
Baur, in the Theologische Jahrbilcher for 1844, there has
indeed been much shifting of ground on the part of the
opponents of the genuineness of the Gospel ; but among schol-
ars of equal learning and ability, as Hilgenfeld, Keim, Schol-
ten, Hausrath, Renan, on the one hand, and Godet, Beyschlag,
Luthardt, Weiss, Lightfoot, on the other, opinions are yet
divided, with a tendency, at least in Germany, toward the
denial of its genuineness. Still, some of these collateral
questions of which I have spoken seem to be approaching a
settlement. I may notice first one of the most important,
the question whether the relation of the Apostle John to
Jewish Christianity was not such that it is impossible to
suppose the Fourth Gospel to have proceeded from him,
even at a late period of his life. This is a fundamental
postulate of the theory of the Tiibingen School, in regard to
lO CRITICAL ESSAYS
the opposition of Paul to the three great Apostles, Peter,
James, and John. The Apostle John, they say, wrote the
Apocalypse, the most Jewish of all the books of the New
Testament ; but he could not have written the anti-Judaic
Gospel. Recognizing most fully the great service which
Baur and his followers have rendered to the history of primi-
tive Christianity by their bold and searching investigations,
I think it may be said that there is a wide-spread and deep-
ening conviction among fair-minded scholars that the theory
of the Tiibingen School, in the form in which it has been
presented by the coryphaei of the party, as Baur, Schwegler,
Zeller, is an extreme view, resting largely on a false interpre-
tation of many passages of the New Testament, and a false
view of many early Christian writings. Matthew Arnold's
protest against the excessive "vigour and rigour" of the
Tiibingen theories brings a good deal of plain English com-
monrsense to bear on the subject, and exposes well some of
the extravagances of Baur and others.* Still more weight is
to be attached to the emphatic dissent of such an able and
thoroughly independent scholar as Dr. James Donaldson, the
author of the Critical History of Christian Literature and
Doctrine^ a work unhappily unfinished. But very significant
is the remarkable article of Keim on the Apostolic Council
at Jerusalem, in his latest work, Aus dent Urchristenthum
("Studies in the History of Early Christianity"), published
in 1878. a short time before his lamented death. In this
able essay, he demolishes the foundation of the Tiibingen
theory, vindicating in the main the historical character of
the account in the Acts, and exposing the misinterpretation
of the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians, on which Baur
and his followers found their view of the absolute contradic-
tion between the Acts and the Epistle. Holtzmann, Lipsius,
Pfleiderer, and especially Weizsacker had already gone far in
modifying the extreme view of Baur ; but this essay of Keim's
is a re-examination of the whole question with reference to
all the recent discussions. The still later work of Schenkel,
* See his God and the BibUt Preface, and chaps, v.. vi.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL II
published during the present year (1879), Das Christusbild
der Apostel und der nachapostolischen Zeit (" The Picture of
Christ presented by the Apostles and by the Post-Apostolic
Time")* is another conspicuous example of the same reac-
tion. Schenkel remarks in the Preface to this volume : —
Having never been able to convince myself of the sheer opposition
between Petrinism and Paulinism, it has also never been possible for me
to get a credible conception of a reconciliation effected by means of a
literature sailing between the contending parties under false colors.
In respect to the Acts of the Aposdes, in particular, I have been led in
part to different results from those represented by the modem critical
school I have been forced to the conviction that it is a far more trust-
worthy source of information than is commonly allowed on the part of
the modem criticism ; that older documents worthy of credit, besides
the well-known ^^f-source, are contained in it ; and that the Paulinist
who composed it has not intentionally distorted (entstellt) the facts, but
only placed them in the light in which they appeared to him and mu&t
have appeared to him from the time and circumstances under which he
wrote. He has not, in my opinion, artificially brought upon the stage
either a Paulinized Peter, or a Petrinized Paul, in order to mislead his
readers, but has portrayed the two apostles just as he actually conceived
of them on the basis of his incomplete information. (Preface, pp. x., xi.)
It would be hard to find two writers more thoroughly inde-
pendent, whatever else may be said of them, than Keim and
Schenkel. Considering their well-known position, they will
hardly be stigmatized as "apologists** in the contemptuous
sense in which that term is used by some recent writers, who
seem to imagine that they display their freedom from par-
tisan bias by giving their opponents bad names. On this
subject of the one-sidedness of the Tiibingen School, I might
also refer to the very valuable remarks of Professor Fisher
in his recent work on The Beginnings of Christianity, and
in his earlier volume on The Supernatural Origin of Chris-
tianity. One of 'the ablest discussions of the question will
also be found in the Essay on ** St. Paul and the Three,"
appended to the commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians,
by Professor Lightfoot, now Bishop of Durham, a scholar who
has no superior among the Germans in breadth of learning
And thoroughness of research. The dissertation of Professor
12 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Jowett on "St. Paul and the Twelve," though not very defi-
nite in its conclusions, likewise deserves perusal.*
In regard to this collateral question, then, I conceive that
decided progress has been made in a direction favorable to
the possibility (to put it mildly) of the Johannean authorship
of the Fourth Gospel. We do not know anything concern-
ing the theological position of the Apostle John, which justi-
fies us in assuming that twenty years after the destruction of
Jerusalem he could not have written such a work.
Another of these collateral questions, on which a vast
amount has been written, and on which very confident and
very untenable assertions have been made, may now, I
believe, be regarded as set at rest, so far as concerns our
present subject, the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. I
refer to the history of the Paschal controversies of the
second century. The thorough discussion of this subject by
Schiirer, formerly Professor Extraordinarius at Leipzig, and
now Professor at Giessen, the editor of the Theologischc
Literaturzeitung, and author of the excellent Neutcstament
liche Zeitgeschichte^ has clearly shown, I believe, that nci
argument against the Johannean authorship of the Fourth
Gospel can be drawn from the entangled history of these
controversies. His essay, in which the whole previous litera-
ture of the subject is carefully reviewed, and all the original
sources critically examined, was published in Latin at
Leipzig in 1869 under the title De Controversiis Pasctialibus
secundo post Christum fiatum Saeculo exortis, and afterwards
in a German translation in Kahnis*s Zeitschrift fiir die
historische TJuologie for 1870, pp. 182-284. There is, accord-
ing to him, absolutely no evidence that the Apostle John
celebrated Easter with the Quartodccimans on the 14th of
Nisan in commemoration, as is so often assumed, of the day
of the Lord's Supper, The choice of the day had no reference
• In his work on Tfu EpixtUs qfSt. Paul to the Tktssalonians, Galatians, Romans, 2d cd.
(London, 1859), i. 417-477; reprinted in a less complete form from the first edition in Noyes's
Tkgol. Essays (1856), p. 357 ff. The very judicious remarks of Mr. Norton in the Christian
Examiner for May, 1829, vol. vi. p. 200 ff., are still worth reading. See the valuable article of
Dr. Wil.bald Grimm, " Der Apostelconvent," in the Stud. u. Krit.^ iSSo, pp. 405-432 ; also, Dr.
H. H. Wendt's Ntuboarbtitung of Meyer's Kommentar on the Aas, 5© Aufl., Giittingcn, 1880.
See also Reuss, Hist, apostoliqut (1876), and Lts Efttrts pauliniennts (1878), in his La BibU^
trad, noMwlUt etc. Contra, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr.^ 1879, p. xooff ; x88o, p. x ff.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 1 3
to that event, nor on the other hand, as Weitzel and Steitz
maintain, to the supposed day of Christ's death, but was
determined by the fact that the 14th was the day of the
Jewish Passover, for which the Christian festival was substi-
tuted. The celebration was Christian, but the day adopted
by John and the Christians of Asia Minor generally was the
day of the Jewish Passover, the 14th of Nisan, on whatever
day of the week it might fall, while the Western Christians
generally, without regard to the day of the month, celebrated
Easter on Sunday, in commemoration of the day of the
resurrection. This is the view essentially of Liicke, Gieseler,
Bleek, De Wette, Hase, and Riggenbach, with differences on
subordinate points ; but Schiirer has made the case clearer
than any other writer. Schiirer is remarkable among Ger-
man scholars for a calm, judicial spirit, and for thoroughness
of investigation; and his judgment in this matter is the
more worthy of regard, as he does not receive the Gospel of
John as genuine. A good exposition of the subject, founded
on Schiirer*s discussion, may be found in Luthardt's work on
the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, of which an English
translation has been published, with an Appendix by Dr.
Gregory of Leipzig, giving the literature of the whole con-
troversy on the authorship of the Gospel far more completely
than it has ever before been presented.
Another point may be mentioned, as to which there has
come to be a general agreement ; namely, that the very late
date assigned to the Gospel by Baur and Schwegler,
namely, somewhere between the years 160 and 170 a.d.,
cannot be maintained. Zeller and Scholten retreat to 150;
Hilgenfeld, who is at last constrained to admit its use by
Justin Martyr, goes back to between 130 and 140; Renan
now says 125 or 130; Keim in the first volume of his History
of yesus of Nazara placed it with great confidence between
the years 1 10 and 115, or more loosely, a.d. ioo-i 17.* The
fatal consequences of such an admission as that were, how-
ever, soon perceived ; and in the last volume of his History
* Getckickte Jfsu von ^azara^ i. 155, comp. 14O (Eng. trans, i. an, cump. 199).
14 CRITICAL ESSAYS
of yesuSy and in the last edition of his abridgment of that
work, he goes back to the year 130.* Schenkel assigns it
to A.D. 115-120.1
This enforced shifting of the date of the Gospel to the
earlier part of the second century (which I may remark inci-
dentally is fatal to the theory that its author borrowed from
Justin Martyr instead of Justin from John) at once pre-
sents very serious difficulties on the supposition of the
spuriousness of the Gospel. It is the uniform tradition,
supported by great weight of testimony, that the Evangelist
John lived to a very advanced age, spending the latter por-
tion of his life in Asia Minor, and dying there in the reign of
Trajan, not far from a.d. 100. How could a spurious Gos-
pel of a character so peculiar, so different from the earlier
Synoptic Gospels, so utterly unhistorical as it is affirmed to
be, gain currency as the work of the Apostle both among
Christians and the Gnostic heretics, if it originated only
twenty-five or thirty years after his death, when so many
who must have known whether he wrote such a work or not
were still living ?
The feeling of this difficulty seems to have revived the
theory, put forward, to be sure, as long ago as 1840 by a
very wild German writer, Liitzelberger, but which Baur and
Strauss deemed unworthy of notice, that the Apostle John
was never in Asia Minor at all. This view has recently
found strenuous advocates in Keim, Scholten, and others,
though it is rejected and, I believe, fully refuted by critics
of the same school, as Hilgenfeld. The historical evidence
against it seems to me decisive ; and to attempt to support
it, as Scholten does, by purely arbitrary conjectures, such as
the denial of the genuineness of the letter of Irenxus to
Florinus, can only give one the impression that the writer
has a desperate cause.J
*Gesckichte Jesu . , ./Ur nueitere Kreise^ 3« Bearbeitung, 2* Aufl. (1875), p. 40.
\Das Charakierbild Jesu^ 4« Aufl. (1873), p. 370.
tSee HUgenfeld, Hist. Krit. Eifeeitung in d. N, T. (1875), p. 394 ff. ; Bleck, Einl. ind.
N. T.f 3» Aufl. (1875), P' ^67 £E., with Mangold's note; Fisher, The Beginnings of CkrisiianHpf
(1877), p. 327 ff. Compare Renan, V Anieckristt p. 557 ff.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 15
Thus far we have noticed a few points connected with the
controversy about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel in
respect to which some progress may seem to have been made
since the time of Baur. Others will be remarked upon inci-
dentally, as we proceed. But to survey the whole field of
discussion in an hour's discourse is impossible. To treat the
question of the historical evidence with any thoroughness
would require a volume ; to discuss the internal character of
the Gospel in its bearings on the question of its genuineness
and historical value would require a much larger one. All
therefore which I shall now attempt will be to consider some
points of the historical evidence for the genuineness of the
Fourth Gospel, as follows: —
1. The general reception of the Four Gospels as genuine
among Christians in the last quarter of the second century.
2. The inclusion of the Fourth Gospel in the Apostolical
Memoirs of Christ appealed to by Justin Martyr.
3. Its use by the various Gnostic sects.
4. The attestation appended to the book itself.
I. I BEGIN with the statement, which cannot be questioned,
that our present four Gospels, and no others, were received
by the great body of Christians as genuine and sacred books
during the last quarter of the second century. This appears
most clearly from the writings of Irenaeus, born not far from
A.D. 125-130,* whose youth was spent in Asia Minor, and
who became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, a.d. 178 ; of Clement,
the head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria about the
year 190, who had travelled in Greece, Italy, Syria, and Pal-
estine, seeking religious instruction.; and of TertuUian, in
North Africa, who flourished toward the close of the century.
The four Gospels are found in the ancient Syriac version of
the New Testament, the Peshito, made in the second century,
the authority of which has the more weight as it omits the
Second and Third Epistles of John, Second Peter, Jude, and
the Apocalypse, books whose authorship was disputed in the
early Church. Their existence in the Old Latin version also
* About A D. 115, according to Zahn in Herzog, ad ed., vii. 135 sq. ; see Smith and Wace'a
Dict» if Christ. Biogr. iii. 253.
1 6 CRITICAL ESSAYS
attests their currency in North Africa, where that version
originated some time in the second century. They appear,
moreover, in the Muratorian Canon, written probably about
A.D. 170, the oldest list of canonical books which has come
down to us.
Mr. Norton in his work on the Genuineness of the Gospels
argues with great force that, when we take into considera-
tion the peculiar character of the Gospels, and the character
and circumstances of the community by which they were
received, the fact of their universal reception at this period
admits of no reasonable explanation except on the supposi-
tion that they are genuine. I do not here contend for so
broad an inference : I only maintain that this fact proves
that our four Gospels could not have originated at this
period, but must have been in existence long before; and
that some very powerful influence must have been at work to
effect their universal reception. I shall not recapitulate
Mr. Norton's arguments ; but I would call attention to one
point on which he justly lays great stress, though it is often
overlooked ; namely, that the main evidence for the genuine-
ness of the Gospels is of an altogether different kind from
that which can be adduced for the genuineness of any classi-
cal work. It is not the testimony of a few eminent Christian
writers to their private opinion, but it is the evidence which
they afford of the belief of the whole body of Christians; and
this, not in respect to ordinary books, whose titles they
might easily take on trust, but respecting books in which
they were most deeply interested ; books which were the
very foundation of that faith which separated them from the
world around them, exposed them to hatred, scorn, and per-
secution, and often demanded the sacrifice of life itself.
I would add that the greater the differences between the
Gospels, real or apparent, the more difficult it must have
been for them to gain this universal reception, except on the
supposition that they had been handed down from the begin-
ning as genuine. This remark applies particularly to the
Fourth Gospel when compared with the first three.
The remains of Christian literature in the first three quar-
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 1 7
ters of the second century are scanty, and are of such a char-
acter that, assuming the genuineness of the Gospels, we have
really no reason to expect more definite references to their
writers, and more numerous quotations from or allusions to
them than we actually do find or seem to find. A few letters,
as the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, now
made complete by the discovery of a new MS. and of a Syriac
version of it ; the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, now complete
in the original ; the short Epistle of Polycarp to the Philip-
pians, and the Epistles (of very doubtful genuineness) attrib-
uted to Ignatius; an allegorical work, the Shepherd ol Her-
mas, which nowhere quotes either the Old Testament or the
New ; a curious romance, the Clementine Homilies ; and the
writings of the Christian Apologists, Justin Martyr, Tatian,
Theophilus, Athenagoras, Hermias, who, in addressing
heathens, could not be expected to talk about Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, which would be to them names
without significance, — these few documents constitute
nearly all the literature of the period. As we should not
expect the Gospels to be quoted by name in the writings of
the Apologists, though we do find John expressly mentioned
by Theophilus, so in such a discussion as that of Justin
Martyr with Trypho the Jew, Justin could not cite in direct
proof of his doctrines works the authority of which the Jew
would not recognize, though he might use them, as he does,
in attestation of historic facts which he regarded as fulfilling
prophecies of the Old Testament.
The author of Supernatural Religion^ in discussing the
evidence of the use of our present Gospels in the first three
quarters of the second century, proceeds on two assumptions :
one, that in the first half of this century vast numbers of
spurious Gospels and other writings bearing the names of
Apostles and their followers were in circulation in the early
Church ; and the other, that we have a right to expect
great accuracy of quotation from the Christian Fathers,
especially when they introduce the words of Christ with
such a formula as "he said'* or "he taught." Now this
last assumption admits of being thoroughly tested, and it
1 8 CRITICAL ESSAYS
contradicts the most unquestionable facts. Instead of such
accuracy of quotation as is assumed as the basis of his
argument, it is beyond all dispute that the Fathers often
quote very loosely, from memory, abridging, transposing,
paraphrasing, amplifying, substituting synonymous words or
equivalent expressions, combining different passages together,
and occasionally mingling their own inferences with their
citations. In regard to the first assumption, a careful sifting
of the evidence will show, I believe, that there is really no
/n?^that in the time of Justin Martyr (with the possible
exception of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in
its primitive form may have been the Hebrew original from
which our present Greek Gospel ascribed to Matthew was
mainly derived) there was a single work, bearing the title of
a Gospel, which as a history of Chrisfs ministry came into
competition with our present four Gospels, or which took
the place among Christians which our Gospels certainly held
in the last quarter of the second century. Much confusion
has arisen from the fact that the term ** Gospel " was in
ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the
writer's view of the Gospel, i.e.^ of the doctrine of Christ, or
among the Gnostics, which set forth their ^^j^; e.g.^ among
the followers of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, " the Gospel "
is V Tdv vTrepKoofiiuv ^-vtMji^, " the knowledge of supermundane
things*' {Ref. Hcer. vii. 27). Again, the apocryphal Gos-
pels of the Nativity and the Infancy, or such works as the
so-called Gospel of Nicodemus, describing the descent of
Christ into Hades, have given popular currency to the idea
that there were floating about in the middle of the second
century a great number of Gospels, rival histories of Christ's
ministry; which these apocryphal Gospels, however, are not
and do not pretend to be. Other sources of confusion, as
the blunders of writers like Epiphanius, I pass over. To
enter into a discussion and elucidation of this subject here
is of course impossible : I will only recommend the read-
ing of Mr. Norton's full examination of it in the third vol-
ume of his Genuineness of the Gospels, which needs, to be
sure, a little supplementing, but the main positions of
which I believe to be impregnable.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 19
Resting on these untenable assumptions, the author of
Supernatural Religion subjects this early fragmentary litera-
ture to a minute examination, and explains away what seem
to be quotations from or references to our present Gospels
in these different works as borrowed from some of the multi-
tudinous Gospels which he assumes to have been current
among the early Christians, especially if these quotations
and references do not present a perfect verbal correspond-
ence with our present Gospels, as is the case with the great
majority of them. Even if the correspondence is verbally
exact, this proves nothing, in his view ; for the quotations of
the words of Jesus might be borrowed from other current
Gospels which resembled ours as much as Matthew, Mark,
and Luke resemble each other. But, if the verbal agreement
is not exact, we have in his judgment a strong proof that the
quotations are derived from some apocryphal book. So he
comes to the conclusion that there is no certain trace of the
existence of our present Gospels for about one hundred and
fifty years after the death of Christ ; />., we will say, till about
A.D. 180.
But here a question naturally arises : How is it, if no trace
of their existence is previously discoverable, that our four
Gospels are suddenly found toward the end of the second
century to be received as sacred books throughout the whole
Christian world } His reply is, " It is totally unnecessary for
me to account for this/'* He stops his investigation of the
subject just at the point where we have solid facts, not con-
jectures, to build upon. When he comes out of the twilight
into the full blaze of day, he shuts his eyes, and refuses to
see anything. Such a procedure cannot be satisfactory to a
sincere inquirer after the truth. The fallacy of this mode of
reasoning is so well illustrated by Mr. Norton, that I must
quote a few sentences. He says : —
About the end of the second century the Gospels were reverenced as
sacred books by a community dispersed over the world, composed of
men of different nations and languages. There were, to say the least,
sixty thousand copies of them in existence ; f they were read in the
^Sm^rnrntwrtd Rtligwn, 6th edition (1875), and 7th edition (1879X vol. i. p. ix. (Preface.)
tS«e Norton's Ggmtm4ntt$ ^tht Gos^ls, ad ed., i. 45-54*
20 CRITICAL ESSAYS
churches of Christians ; they were continually quoted, and appealed to,
as of the highest authority ; their reputation was as well established
among believers from one end of the Christian community to the other,
as it is at the present day among Christians in any country. But it is
asserted that before that period we find no trace of their existence ; and
it is, therefore, inferred that they were not in common use, and but little
known, even if extant in their present form. This reasoning is of the
same kind as if one were to say that the first mention of £g3rptian
Thebes is in the time of Homer. He, indeed, describes it as a city
which poured a hundred armies from its hundred gates ; but his is the
first mention of it, and therefore we have no reason to suppose that,
before his time, it was a place of any considerable note.*
As regards the general reception of the four Gospels in
the last quarter of the second century, however, a slight
qualification is to be made. Some time in the latter half of
the second century, the genuineness of the Gospel of John
was denied by a few eccentric individuals (we have no
ground for supposing that they formed a sect), whom Epiph-
anius {Hmr, li., comp. liv.) calls Alogi ('AP^yo/), a nickname
which has the double meaning of " deniers of the doctrine of
the Logos," and "men without reason.'* They are probably
the same persons as those of whom Irenaeus speaks in one
passage {Hcer, iii. ii. § 9), but to whom he gives no name.
But the fact that their difficulty with the Gospel was a
doctrinal one, and that they appealed to no tradition in favor
of their view ; that they denied the Johannean authorship of
the Apocalypse likewise, and absurdly ascribed both books
to Cerinthus, who, unless all our information about him is
false, could not possibly have written the Fourth Gospel,
shows that they were persons of no critical judgment. Zeller
admits {Theol. yahrb, 1845, P- 645) that their opposition does
not prove that the Gospel was not generally regarded in
their time as of Apostolic origin. The fact that they
ascribed the Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus, a heretic of the
first century, contemporary with the Apostle John, shows
that they could not pretend that this Gospel was a recent
work.
Further, while the Gnostics generally agreed with the
* EvitUneti c/tht Gtnninenets iiftht Gos/elst uscond edition, vol. i. pp. 195, 1961
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 21
Catholic Christians in receiving the four Gospels, and espe-
cially the Gospel of John, which the Valentinians, as Irenaeus
tells us, used plenissinte {Hcer, iii. ii. § 7), the Marcionites
are an exception. They did not, however, question the
genuineness of the Gospels, but regarded their authors as
under the influence of Jewish prejudices. Marcion therefore
rejected all but Luke, the Pauline Gospel, and cut out from
this whatever he deemed objectionable. We may note here,
incidentally, that the author of Supernatural Religion^ in the
first six editions of his work, contended, in opposition to the
strongest evidence, that Marcion's Gospel, instead of being,
as all ancient testimony represents it, a mutilated Luke, was
the earlier, original Gospel, of which Luke's was a later
amplification. This theory was started by Semler, that
varium, mutabile et mirabile capitulum, as he is called by a
German writer (Matthaei, N. T, Gr,, i. 687) ; and after having
been adopted by Eichhom and many German critics was so
thoroughly refuted by Hilgenfeld in 1850, and especially by
Volkmar in 1852, that it was abandoned by the most eminent
of its former supporters, as Ritschl, Zeller, and partially by
Baur. But individuals differ widely in their power of resist-
ing evidence opposed to their prejudices, and the author of
Supernatural Religion has few equals in this capacity. We
may therefore feel that something in these interminable
discussions is settled, when we note the fact that he has at
last surrendered. His conversion is due to Dr. Sanday, who
in an article in the Fortnightly Review (June, 1875, P- SSS» ff-)>
reproduced in substance in his work on The Gospels in the
Second Century ^ introduced the linguistic argument, showing
that the very numerous and remarkable peculiarities of lan-
guage and style which characterize the parts of Luke which
Marcion retained are found so fully and completely in those
which he rejected as to render diversity of authorship utterly
incredible.
But to return to our first point, — the unquestioned recep-
tion of our present Gospels throughout the Christian world
in the last quarter of the second century, and that, I add,
without the least trace of any previous controversy on the
22 CRITICAL ESSAYS
subject, with the insignificant exception of the Alogi whom I
have mentioned. This fact has a most important bearing on
the next question in order ; namely, whether the Apostolical
Memoirs to which Justin Martyr appeals about the middle of
the second century were or were not our four Gospels. To
discuss this question fully would require a volume. All that
I propose now is to place the subject in the light of acknowl-
edged facts, and to illustrate the falsity of the premises from
which the author of Supernatural Religion reasons.
II. The writings of Justin consist of two Apologies or
Defences of Christians and Christianity addressed to the
Roman Emperor and Senate, the first written most probably
about the year 146 or 147 (though many place it in the
year 138),* and a Dialogue in defence of Christianity with
Trypho the Jew, written somewhat later {Dial, c. 120, comp.
ApoL i. c. 26).t
In these writings, addressed, it is to be observed, to unbe-
lievers, he quotes, not in proof of doctrines, but as authority
for his account of the teaching of Christ and the facts in his
life, certain works of which he commonly speaks as the
"Memoirs*' or "Memorabilia" of Christ, using the Greek
word, *A7rofjLVTffwv£VfiaTa, with which we are familiar as the desig-
nation of the Memorabilia of Socrates by Xenophon. Of
these books he commonly speaks as the " Memoirs \>y the
Apostles," using this expression eight times ; J four times he
calls them " the Memoirs '* simply ; || once, " Memoirs made by
the Apostles which are called Gospels '* (Apol i. 66) ; once,
when he cites a passage apparently from the Gospel of Luke,
" Memoirs composed by the Apostles of Christ and their
companions," — literally, "those who followed with them"
(Dial c. 103) ; once again {Dial c. 106), when he speaks of our
Saviour as changing the name of Peter, and of his giving to
James and John the name Boanerges, a fact only mentioned
•So Waddington, Affm. dt PAcad. da inscr. tt beUet-Uttrts, t. xxvi.,pt. i., p. 264(7.;
Hamack in Th^ol. Literatu^zeitMng^ 1876, col. 14, andCaspari, as there referred lu; [Light-
foot, Apottolic Father St pt. ii., vol. i. p. 46a].
tSce Engelhardt, Das Christenthum yustim des Afdrtyrers (1878), p. 71 ff. ; Renan,
L'Eglise ckritunnt (1879), p. 367, n. 4.
XApol. i. 67; Died. cc. 103, loi, 102, 103, 104, 106 bis: ra anofivi^iJxyvevfAaTa tChv ano'
aT6hjv (rcjy arrtHjr. a vrov , «c. Xjjiorov, 5 times).
H DiaL cc. los ieTf Z07.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 2$
SO far as we know in the Gospel of Mark, he designates as
his authority " Peter's Memoirs," which, supposing him to
have used our Gospels, is readily explained by the fact that
Peter was regarded by the ancients as furnishing the mate-
rials for the Gospel of Mark, his travelling companion and
interpreter.* Once more, Justin speaks in the plural of
"those who have written Memoirs {ol airofivTffioveijaavTeg) of all
things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom (ok) we
believe " {Apol, i. 33) ; and, again, " the Apostles wrote "
so and so, referring to an incident mentioned in all four of
the Gospels {Dial, c. ^^),
But the most important fact mentioned in Justin's writings
respecting these Memoirs, which he describes as " composed
by Apostles of Christ and their companions," appears in his
account of Christian worship, in the sixty-seventh chapter of
his First Apology. " On the day called Sunday," he says,
" all who live in cities or in the country gather together to
one place, and the Memoirs by the Apostles or the writings
of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits. When the
reader has finished, the president admonishes and exhorts to
the imitation of these good things." It appears, then, that,
at the time when he wrote, these books, whatever they were,
on which he relied for his knowledge of Christ's teaching
and life, were held in at least as high reverence as the writ-
ings of the Prophets, were read in the churches just as our
Gospels were in the last quarter of the second century, and
formed the basis of the hortatory discourse that followed.
The writings of the Prophets might alternate with them in
this use ; but Justin mentions the Memoirs first.
These "Memoirs," then, were well-known books, distin-
* I adopt with most scholars {versus Semisch and Grimm) the construction which refers the
avTov in this passage not to Christ, but to Peter, in accordance with the use of the genitive after
aTOfiv/fUOvevfiara everywhere else in Justin. (See a note on the question in the ChrisiiaH
Exasmsner lor July, 1854, Ivi. laS f.) For the statement in the text, see Tertullian, Adv. Marc.
IT. 5. : Licet et Marcus quod edidit[evangelium] Petri affirmetur,cujusinterpres Marcus. Jerome,
De Vir. ill. c. i. : Sed et Evangelium juxta Marcum, qui auditor ejus [sc. Petri] et interpres fuit,
hQJus didtur. Comp. ibid, c. 8, and Ep. 120 (al. 150) ad Hedib. c 11. See also Papias, ap.
Euaeb. Hist. EccL ilL 39; Ireueus, Hatr. iii. i, § z (ap. Euseb. v. 8); 10, $6; Clement of Alex-
andria ap. Euaeb. iL 15 ; vL 14; Origen ap. Euseb. vi. 25; and the striking passage of Eusebiua^
JDlMS. Ev€tmg. iiL 3, pp. laod-iaa*, quoted by Lardner, IV^rks iv. 91 ff. (Lood. 1809).
24 CRITICAL ESSAYS
guished from others as the authoritative source of instruc-
tion concerning the doctrine and life of Christ.
There is one other coincidence between the language
which Justin uses in describing these books and that which
we find in the generation following. The four Gospels as a
collection might indifferently be called, and were indifferently
cited as, " the Gospels " or ** the Gospel." We find this use of
the expression " the Gospel " in Theophilus of Antioch,
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, the
Apostolical Constitutions, Tertullian, and later writers gen-
erally.* Now Justin represents Trypho as saying, "I know
that your precepts in what is called the Gospel {h r^ Xeyofihifi
eifayyeXiif)) are SO wonderful and great as to cause a suspicion
that no one may be able to observe them." {Dial c. lo.) In
another place, he quotes, apparently. Matt. xi. 27 (comp.
Luke X. 22) as being "written in the Gospel."t No plausi-
ble explanation can be given of this language except that
which recognizes in it the same usage that we constantly
find in later Christian writers. The books which in one
place Justin calls "Gospels," books composed by Apostles
and their companions, were in reference to what gave them
their distinctive value one. They were the record of the
Gospel of Christ in different forms. No one of our present
Gospels, if these were in circulation in the time of Justin^
and certainly no one of that great number of Gospels which
*Sec Justin or Pseudo- Justin, De Res.c lo. — Ignat. or Pseudo-Ignat. Ad PhUad. cc 5»
8; Smyrn. cc. 5(?), 7. — Pscudo-CIem. 2 E^. ad Cor. c. 8. — Theophil. iii. 14. — Iren. Hitr.
i. 7. §4; 8. §4; 20. §2; 27. %%. ii. 22. §5; 26. §2. iii. 5. §1; 9. §2; 10. §§2, 6; 11. §§8
{TeTf}dfiop(l>ov ru £vayyi?uov),9 » »6. § 5. iv. 20. $§6, 9 ; 3a. § » ; 34- § i.— Clem. Al. Pad. i. c.
5, pp. 104, 105, ^ii ed. Potter; c. 9, pp. i43i US ^u, 148. ii. i, p. 169; c. 10, p. 235; c. 12, p.
246. Strom, ii. 16, p. 467. iii. 6, p. 537; c. 11, p. 544. iv. i, p. 564; c. 4, p. 5^0. v. 5, p. 664.
▼L 6, p. 764; c. II, p. 7S4 6is; c. 14, p. 797. vii.3,p.836. Eel. proph. cc. 50, 57. — Origen, Cont.
CoU. i. 51. ii. 13. a4, 27. 34, 36, 37» 61, 63 (Opp. I. 367, 398, 409, 411, 415, 416 bis, 433, 434 ed.
Delarue). In Joan. torn. i. §§4, $. v. §4. (Opp. IV. 4, 98.) Pseudo-Orig. Dial, de recta
in Deum, ^de, sect, i (Opp. I. 807). — Hippol. No'it. c. 6.— Const. Ap. i. 1, 2 bis, 5, 6. ii. 1 bis^
5 bis,t bist 8, 13, 16, 17, 35,39. iii. 7. v. 14. vi. 23 bis, 28. vii. 24. — Tertull. Cast. c. 4. Pudie. c.
2. Adv. Marc. iv. 7. Hermog.c. 20. Resurr. c 27. Projc. cc. 20,21. — Plural., Muratorian
Canon(alsothe8ing.).— Theophilus, ..4 </.«4 «/<?/. iii. 12, ra rfov TrfX)0ijT(Jv Kai ruv eva}ye?uuv.
— Qem. Al. Strom, iv. 6. p. 582. HippoL Re/i Har. vii. 38, p. 259, ra»v 6k evayy€?Jcjv y rait
aTToardTiOV, and later writers everywhere. — Piurai used where the passage quoted is found in only
Ofu ol the Gospels, Basilides ap. Hippol. Re/. Har. vii. 22, 27. — Const. Ap. ii. 53. — Cyril of
Jerusalem, Procat. c. 3; Cat. ii. 4; x. i; xvi. 16. — Theodoret, Qtuest. in Nuvt. c. xix. q. 35^
Migne Ixxx. 385; In Ps. xlv. 16, M. Ixxx. 1197; In i Thess. v. 15, M. Ixxxii. 649, and so often.
t On this important passage see Note A at the end of this es.viy.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 25
the writer of Supernatural Religion imagines to have been
current at that period, could have been so distinguished from
the rest as to be called " the Gospel"
It has been maintained by the author of Supernatural Re-
ligion and others that Justin's description of the Gospels as
" Memoirs composed by the Apostles and those who followed
with them " (to render the Greek verbally) cannot apply to
works composed by two Apostles and two companions of
Apostles : " the Apostles " must mean all the Apostles, " the
collective body of the Apostles." (5. R, i. 291.) Well, if it
must, then the connected expression, "those that followed
with them" (rov kiuivoiq napaKo?jovdTf<jdvTuv), whcrc the definite
article is used in just the same way in Greek, must mean "all
those that followed with them." We have, then, a truly mar-
vellous book, if we take the view of Supernatural Religion
that the *' Memoirs " of Justin was a single work ; a Gospel,
namely, composed by " the collective body of the Apostles "
and the collective body of those who accompanied them. If
the " Memoirs " consist of several different books thus com-
posed, the marvel is not lessened. Now Justin is not respon-
sible for this absurdity. The simple fact is that the definite
article in Greek in this case distinguishes the two classes to
which the writers of the Gospels belonged.*
To state in full detail and with precision all the features of
the problem presented by Justin's quotations, and his refer-
ences to facts in the life of Christ, is here, of course, impos-
sible. But what is the obvious aspect of the case ?
It will not be disputed that there is a very close cor-
respondence between the history of Christ sketched by
Justin, embracing numerous details, and that found in our
Gospels : the few statements not authorized by them, such
as that Christ was born in a cave, that the Magi came from
Arabia, that Christ as a carpenter made ploughs and yokes,
*For iUastntions of this nte of the article, see Norton's EvuUnces of ih* Gtnmtumuof
tkg G^^tbt ist ed. (1837), vol. i. p. 190, note. Comp. z Thess. ii. 14 and Jude 17, where it woald
be idl« to RqipoM that the writer means that eUl the Apostles had given the particular warning
referred ta See also Origen, C^mt. CtU, i. 51, p. 367, fiera rrjv avayeypafifiivrfv kv Toic
evayyeXiotf vtrb r « v 'Irjavif fjuiBr^Cnf iaropiav ; and ii ij, irapan}.i^ta Toi^ imb top
fia&^uv Tov *lffaov ypa^lmv. Add CotU. Cels. ii. 16 init. See, furthei Note B at the end
ot tme eseajr.
26 . CRITICAL ESSAYS
present little or no objection to the supposition that they
were his main authority. These details may be easily ex-
plained as founded on oral tradition, or as examples of that
substitution of inferences from facts for the facts themselves,
which we find in so many ancient and modern writers, and
observe in every-day life.* Again, there is a substantial cor-
respondence between the teaching of Christ as reported by
Justin and that found in the Gospels. Only one or two
sayings are ascribed to Christ by Justin which are not con-
tained in the Gospels, and these may naturally be referred,
like others which we find in writers who received our four
Gospels as alone authoritative, to oral tradition, or may have
been taken from some writing or writings now lost which
contained such traditions.! That Justin actually used all
our present Gospels is admitted by Hilgenfeld and Keim.
But that they were not his main authority is argued chiefly
from the want of exact verbal correspondence between his
citations of the words of Christ and the language of our
Gospels, where the meaning is essentially the same. The
untenableness of this argument has been demonstrated, I
conceive, by Norton, Semisch, Westcott, and Sanday, versus
Hilgenfeld and Supeniatural Religion, Its weakness is illus-
trated in a Note at the end of this essay, and will be further
illustrated presently by the full discussion of a passage of
special interest and importance. Justin nowhere expressly
* Several of Justin's additions in the way of detail seem to have proceeded from his assum^
tioH of the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies, or what he regarded as such. See Semisch,
DU apost. Denk^vxirdigkeiteH des MUrtyrers Justinu$ (1S48), p. 377 ff. ; Volkmar, Der
Ursprung ututrer Evangelien (1866), p. 124 f . ; Westcott, Canon 0/ tJie N. 7"., p. 16a, 4th ed.
(187s), and Dr. E. A. Abbott, art. Go$peU in the ninth ed. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (p. 817),
who remarks: " Justin never quotes any rival Gospel, nor alleges any words or facts which make
It probable he used a rival Gospel ; such non-canonical sayings and facts as he mentions are
readily explicable as the results of lapse of memory, general looseness and inaccuracy, extending
to the use of the Old as well as the New Testament, and the desire to adapt the facts of the New
Scriptures to the prophecies of the Old." (p. 818).
t See Westcott, "On the Apocryphal Traditions of the Lord's Words and Works," appended
to his Inirod. to tJit Study of tke Gospth^ 5th ed. (1875), pp. 453-461, and the little volume of
J. T. Dodd, Sayin^x ascribed to our Lord by tfu Father s^^xc^ Oxford, 1874. Compare Norton,
Genuineness o/ihe Gospels^ 2d ed. , i. 2 ao ff. The stress which the author of Supernatural Religian
lays on the word iravra in the passage {Apol. i 33) where Justin speaks of "those who have
written memoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ " shows an extraordinary
<iisregard of the common use of such expressions. It is enough to compare, as Westcott does,
Acts i. I. For illustrations from Justin {Apol. ii. 6; i. 45 ; Dial. cc. 44, lai) see Semisch, Di§
e^it. DenkwikrdigkeiUn u. s. w., p. 404 f.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 2J
quotes the "Memoirs" for anything which is not substan-
tially found in our Gospels; and there is nothing in his
deviations from exact correspondence with them, as regards
matters of fact, or the report of the words of Christ, which
may not be abundantly paralleled in the writings of the
Christian Fathers who used our four Gospels as alone
authoritative.
With this view of the state of the case, and of the char-
acter of the books used and described by Justin though
without naming their authors, let us now consider the
bearing of the indisputable fact (with which the author of
Supernatural Religion thinks he has no concern) of the gen-
eral reception of our four Gospels as genuine in the last
quarter of the second century. As I cannot state the argu-
ment more clearly or more forcibly than it has been done by
Mr. Norton, I borrow his language. Mr. Norton says : —
The manner in which Justin speaks of the character and authority
of the books to which he appeals, of their reception among Christians,
and of the use which was made of them, proves these books to have
been the Gospels. They carried with them the authority of the Apostles.
They were those writings from which he and other Christians derived
their knowledge of the history and doctrines of Christ They were relied
upon by him as primary and decisive evidence in his explanations of the
character of Christianity. They were regarded as sacred books. They
were read in the assemblies of Christians on the Lord's day, in connection
with the Prophets of the Old Testament Let us now consider the
manner in which the Gospels were regarded by the contemporaries of
Justin. Irenaeus was in the vigor of life before Justin's death ; and the
same was true of very many thousands of Christians living when Irenaeus
wrote. But he tells us that the four Gospels are the four p liars of the
Church, the foundation of Christian faith, written by those who had first
orally preached the Gospel, by two Apostles and two companions of
Apostles. It is incredible that Irenxus and Justin should have spoken
of difEerent books. We cannot suppose that writings, such as the
Memoirs of which Justin speaks, believed to be the works of Apostles
and companions of Apostles, read in Christian Churches, and received
a< sacred books, of the highest authority, should, immediately after he
wrote, have fallen into neglect and oblivion, and been superseded by
another set of books. The strong sentiment of their value could not so
silently, and so unaccountably, have changed into entire disregard, and
have been transferred to other writings. The copies of them spread
over the world could not so suddenly and mysteriously have disappeared.
28 CRITICAL ESSAYS
that no subsequent trace of their existence should be clearly discoverable.
When, there- fore, we find Irenaeus, the contemporary of Justin, ascribing
to the four Gospels the same character, the same authority, and the same
authors, as are ascribed by Justin to the Memoirs quoted by him, which
were called Gospels, there can be no reasonable doubt that the Memoirs
of Justin were the Gospels of Irenxus.*
It may be objected to Mr. Norton's argument, that **many
writings which have been excluded from the canon were
publicly read in the churches, until very long after Justin's
day." {S,R, i. 294.) The author of Supernatural Religion
mentions particularly the Epistle of the Roman Clement to
the Corinthians, the Epistle of Soter, the Bishop of Rome,
to the Corinthians, the " Pastor " or " Shepherd " of Hermas,
and the Apocalypse of Peter. To these may be added the
Epistle ascribed to Barnabas.
To give the objection any force, the argument must run
thus: The writings above named were at one time gener-
ally regarded by Christians as sacred books, of the highest
authority and importance, and placed at least on a level with
the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. They
were afterwards excluded from the canon: therefore a similar
change might take place among Christians in their estimate
of the writings which Justin has described under the name
of "Memoirs by the Apostles." In the course of thirty
years, a different set of books might silently supersede them
in the whole Christian world.
The premises are false. There is no proof that any one
of these writings was ever regarded as possessing the same
authority and value as Justin's " Memoirs," or anything like
it. From the very nature of the case, books received as au-
thentic records of the life and teaching of Christ must have
had an importance which could belong to no others. On
the character of the teaching and the facts of the life of
Christ as recorded in the ** Memoirs," Justin's whole argu-
ment rests. Whether he regarded the Apostolic writings
as " inspired " or not, he unquestionably regarded Christ as
inspired, or rather as the divine, inspiring Logos {Apol, i.
* Evideneet of th4 Gtmmmtntts of tht Got^h^ ad ed. , vol. i. pp. 237-239.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 29
33» 36; ii. 10) ; and his teaching as "the new law/' universal,
everlasting, which superseded "the old covenant." (See
DiaL cc. II, 12, etc.) The books that contained this were to
the Christians of Justin's time the very foundation of their
faith.
As to the works mentioned by Supernatural Religion, not
only is there no evidence that any one of them ever held a
place in the Christian Church to be compared for a moment
with that of the Gospels, but there is abundant evidence to
the contrary. They were read in some churches for a time
as edifying books, — the Epistle of Clement of Rome "in
very many churches '* according to Eusebius (Hist, Eccl, iii.
16),* — and a part of them were regarded by a few Chris-
tian writers as having apostolic or semi-apostolic authority,
or as divinely inspired. One of the most definite statements
about them is that of Dionysius of Corinth (fir, a.d. 175-180),
who, in a letter to the church at Rome (Euseb. Hist, Eccl,
iv. 23), tells us that the Epistle of Soter (d. 176?) to the
Christians at Corinth was read in their church for edification
or "admonition" (yox/dtrtioBai is the word used) on a certain
Sunday, and would continue to be so read from time to time,
as the Epistle of Clement had been. This shows how far the
occasional public reading of such a writing in the church
was from implying its canonical authority. — Clement of
Alexandria repeatedly quotes the Epistle ascribed to Barna-
bas as the work of " Barnabas the Apostle," but criticises
and condemns one of his interpretations {Strom, ii. 15,
p. 464), and in another place, as Mr. Norton remarks, rejects
a fiction found in the work {Peed, ii. 10, p. 220, £f.). — "The
Shepherd" of Hermas in lis form claims to be a divine
vision; its allegorical character suited the taste of many;
and the Muratorian Canon {cir, a.d. 170) says that it ought
to be read in the churches, but not as belonging to the writ-
ings of the prophets or apostles. (See Credncr, Gcsch, d.
neutest, Kanon^ p. 165.) This was the general view of those
who did not reject it as altogether apocryphal. It appears in
the Sinaitic MS. as an appendix to the New Testament. — The
Apocalypse of Peter appears to have imposed upon some
*Comp. esp. Lightfoot, CUmeut of Romt^ p. a 73 ff.
30 CRITICAL ESSAYS
as the work of the Apostle. The Muratorian Canon says,
" Some among us are unwilling that it should be read in the
church." It seems to have been received as genuine by
Clement of Alexandria {Ed, proph, cc. 41, 48, 49) and Meth-
odius {Conv. ii. 6). Besides these, the principal writers who
speak of it are Eusebius {Hist. EccL iii. 3. §2; 25. §4; vi.
14. § i), who rejects it as uncanonical or spurious, Jerome
{De Vir. ill, c. i), who puts it among apocryphal writings,
and Sozomen {Hist. Reel, vii. 19), who mentions that, though
rejected by the ancients as spurious, it was read once a year
in some churches of Palestine.*
It appears sufficiently from what has been said that there
is nothing in the limited ecclesiastical use of these books, or
in the over-estimate of their authority and value by some
individuals, to detract from the force of Mr. Norton's argu-
ment. Supernatural Religion here confounds things that
differ very widely.f
At this stage of the argument, we are entitled, I think, to
come to the examination of the apparent use of the Gospel
of John by Justin Martyr with a strong presumption in favor
of the view that this apparent use is real. In other words,
there is a very strong presumption that the ** Memoirs" used
by Justin and called by him " Gospels *' and collectively " the
Gospel,'* and described as " composed by Apostles of Christ
and their companions," were actually our present Gospels,
composed by two Apostles and two conjpanions of Apostles.
This presumption is, I believe, greatly strengthened by the
evidence of the use of the Fourth Gospel by writers between
the time of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and also by the
evidences of its use before the time of Justin by the Gnostic
sects. But, leaving those topics for the present, we will con-
sider the direct evidence of its use by Justin.
The first passage noticed will be examined pretty thor-
oughly : both because the discussion of it will serve to illus-
trate the false reasoning of the author of Supernatural Relig-
* See, on this book, Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, txtra canonem reee^um (1866), iv. 74, if.
t On this whole subject, see Semisch, Dit apettoU DenkwVkrdigktittn eUs Jidrt. yustimu,
p. 61, ff.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 3 1
ion and other writers respecting the quotations of Justin
Martyr which agree in substance with passages in our
Gospels while differing in the form of expression ; and
because it is of special importance in its bearing on the
question whether Justin made use of the Fourth Gospel, and
seems to me, when carefully examined, to be in itself almost
decisive.
The passage is that in which Justin gives an account of
Christian baptism, in the sixty-first chapter of his First
Apology. Those who are ready to make a Christian pro-
fession, he says, "are brought by us to a place where there
is water, and in the manner of being born again [or regen-
erated] in which we ourselves also were born again, they are
born again ; for in the name of the Father of the universe
and sovereign God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and
of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the bath in the water.
For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall in
no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven ( Av //jy avaytwrfifjTe,
ov iiri ciaiWrrrt eif rfp^ PaaiXeiav rijif ovfmvdv). But that it is impossible
for those who have once been born to enter into the wombs
of those who brought them forth is manifest to all."
The passage in the Gospel of John of which this reminds
us is found in chap. iii. 3-5 : "Jesus answered and said to him
[Nicodemus], Verily, verily I say unto thee. Except a man
be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God (Eav fiy n^
ytwrfiff ivudev^ ov dhvarcu ideiv t^ PaaiXetav tov Beov). NicodcmUS Saith
to him. How can a man be born when he is old ? Can he
enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born.^
Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee. Except a man
be bom of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God ('Edv fi^ ng yewj^ij e^ vdarog Kal nvevfioTog, ov (]vvarai
eiffeMiv tie T^ I3aat?^iav TOV Oeov), Compare verse 7, "Marvel not
that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew " (^a vfiac yewriOyvai
avufftv); and Matt, xviii. 3, "Verily I say unto you. Except ye
be changed, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise
enter into the kingdom of heaven" (ov fii^ elai^Brrre elg ryv paat?Mav
r6» oifpavuv).
I have rendered the Greek as literally as possible ; but it
32 CRITICAL ESSAYS
should be observed that the word translated " anew," ivudev^
might also be rendered "from above.*' This point will be
considered hereafter. .
Notwithstanding the want of verbal correspondence, I
believe that we have here in Justin a free quotation from
the Gospel of John, modified a little by a reminiscence of
Matt, xviii. 3.
The first thing that strikes us in Justin's quotation is the
fact that the remark with which it concludes, introduced by
Justin as if it were a grave observation of his own, is simply
silly in the connection in which it stands. In John, on the
other hand, where it is not to be understood as a serious
question, it admits, as we shall see, of a natural explanation
as the language of Nicodemus. This shows, as everything
else shows, the weakness (to use no stronger term) of Volk-
mar's hypothesis, that John has here borrowed from Justin,
not Justin from John. The observation affords also, by its
very remarkable peculiarity, strong evidence that Justin
derived it, together with the declaration which accompanies
it, from the Fourth Gospel.
It will be well, before proceeding to our immediate task,
to consider the meaning of the passage in John, and what
the real difficulty of Nicodemus was. He could not have
been perplexed by the figurative use of the expression " to
be born anew " : that phraseology was familiar to the Jews
to denote the change which took place in a Gentile when he
became a proselyte to Judaism.* But the unqualified lan-
guage of our Saviour, expressing a universal necessity,
implied that even the Jewish Pharisee, with all his pride of
sanctity and superior knowledge, must experience a radical
change, like that which a Gentile proselyte to Judaism under-
went, before he could enjoy the blessings of the Messiah's
kingdom. This was what amazed Nicodemus. Pretending
therefore to take the words in their literal meaning, he asks,
" How can a man be born when he is old ? Can he enter,"
etc. He imposes an absurd and ridiculous sense on the
*See Lightfoot and Wetstein, or T. Robinson or WUnsche, on John uL 3 or 5.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 33
words, to lead Jesus to explain himself further.* Thus
viewed, the question is to some purpose in John; while
the language in Justin, as a serious proposition, is idle, and
betrays its non-originality.
The great difference in the form of expression between
Justin's citation and the Gospel of John is urged as decisive
against the supposition that he has here used this Gospel.
It is observed further that all the deviations of Justin from
the language of the Fourth Gospel are also found in a
quotation of the words of Christ in the Clementine Homilies ;
and hence it has been argued that Justin and the writer of
the Clementines quoted from the same apocryphal Gospel,
perhaps the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Gospel
according to Peter. In the Clementine Homilies (xi. 26),
the quotation runs as follows : " For thus the prophet
swore unto us, saying. Verily I say unto you, except ye be
born again by living water into the name of Father, Son,
Holy Spirit, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of
heaven." But it will be seen at once that the author of the
Clementines differs as widely from Justin as Justin from the
Fourth Gospel, and that there is no plausibility in the suppo-
sition that he and Justin quoted from the same apocryphal
book. The quotation in the Clementines is probably only
a free combination of the language in John iii. 3-5 with
Matt xxviii. 19, modified somewhat in form by the influence
of Matt, xviii. 3.! Such combinations of different passages,
and such quotations of the words of Christ according to the
sense rather than the letter, are not uncommon in the
Fathers. Or, the Clementines may have used Justin, t
I now propose to show in detail that the differences in form
between Justin's quotation and the phraseology of the Fourth
Gospel, marked as they are, all admit of an easy and natural
explanation on the supposition that he really borrowed from
it, and that they are paralleled by similar variations in the
•See Norton, A Nexit Trans, of the GosptU^ tvith Notes, vol. ii. p. 507.
tOn the qootationt from the Gospel of John as well as from the other Gospels in the
Qemewtine Homilies, see Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 388-295 \ comp. pp.
i6s'iS7. See also Westoott, Canon of the //. T., pp. 382-288 ; and oomp. pp. i $9-156.
tSo Bleek, Be&rS£e,p, asi; Anger, Synopsis, p. 373; De Wette, End, § b^«, note g.
Comp. Kdm, UrchriU.t p. 225, note, who asserts, in general, that Justin Martyr is " besonders
bcnotzt " by the aathor of the Clementine Homilies.
34 CRITICAL ESSAYS
quotations of the same passage by Christian writers who
used our four Gospels as their exclusive authority. If this
is made clear, the fallacy of the assumption on which the
author of Supernatural Religion reasons in his remarks on
this passage, and throughout his discussion of Justin's quota-
tions, will be apparent. He has argued on an assumption of
verbal accuracy in the quotations of the Christian Fathers
which is baseless, and which there were peculiar reasons for
not expecting from Justin in such works as his Apologies.*
Let us take up the differences point by point : —
I. The solemn introduction, "Verily, verily I say unto
thee," is omitted. But this would be very naturally omitted :
(i) because it is of no importance for the sense; and (2)
because the Hebrew words used, 'Ap/v d^vv, would be unintel-
ligible to the Roman Emperor, without a particular explana-
tion (compare Apol. i. 65). (3) It is usually omitted by
Christian writers in quoting the passage : so, for example, by
the DocETiST in Hippolytus {Ref. Har, viii. 10, p. 267), Ire-
NiEUS (Frag. 35, ed. Stieren, 33 Harvey), Origen, in a Latin
version {In Ex. Horn. v. i, Opp. ii. 144, ed. Delarue ; In Ep, ad
Rom, lib. V. c. 8, Opp. iv. 560), the Apostolical Constitu-
tions (vi. 15), EusEBius twice (In Isa, i. 16, 17, and iii. i, 2 ;
Migne xxiv. 96, 109), Athanasjus {De Incam. c. 14, Opp.
'. S9f ed. Montf.), Cyril of Jerusalem twice (Cat. iii. 4;
jcvii. 1 1), Basil the Great (Adv, Eunotn, lib. v. Opp. i. 308
(437), ed. Benedict.), Pseudo-Basil three times (De Bapt,
i. 2. §§ 2, 6; ii. i. § i ; Opp. ii. 630 (896), 633 (899), 653
(925) ), Gregory Nysscn (De Christi Bapt. Opp. iii. 369),
Ephraem Syrus (De Pomit. Opp. iii. 183), Macarius ^Egyp-
*On the whole subject of Justin Martyr's quotations, I would refer to the admirably clear,
forcible, and accurate statement of the case in Norton's Evidences of the Genuipteness of the
Gospels^ ad ed., vol. i. pp. 200-239, and Addit. Note E, pp. ccxiv.-ccxxxviii. His account is
less detailed than that of Semisch, Hilgenfeld, and Super natureU Religion^ but is thoroughly
trustworthy. On one point there may be a doubt : Mr. Norton says that " Justin twice gives the
words, Thou art my ton ; this day have I begotten thee^ as those uttered at otir Saviour's
baptism; and in one place says expressly that the wortls were found in the Memoirs by the
Apostles." This last statement seems to me incorrea. The quotations referred to will be found
in Dial. c. Try ph. cc. 88, 103 ; but in neither case does Justin say^ according to the grammatical
construction of his language, that the words in question were found in the Memoirs, though it is
probable that they were. (See below, p. loi f.) The discui^sion of Justin's quotations by
Prof, Westcott and Dr. Sanday in the works referred to in note t on the preceding page is also
Valuable, espedally in reference to the early variations in the text of the Gospels.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 35
Tius (Horn. XXX. 3), Chrysostom {De consubst. vii. 3, Opp.
i. 505 (618), ed. Montf. ; In Gen, Serm. vii. 5, Opp. iv. 681
(789), and elsewhere repeatedly), Theodoret {QucbsL in
Num. 35, Migne Ixxx. 385), Basil of Seleucia {Orat,
xxviii. 3, Migne Ixxxv. 321), and a host of other writers, both
Greek and Latin, — I could name forty, if necessary.
2. The change of the indefinite r/f, in the singular, to the
second person plural: "Except a man be born anew" to
"Except ye be bom anew." This also is unimportant.
This is shown, and the origin of the change is partially
explained (i) by the fact, not usually noticed, that it is made
by the speaker himself in the Gospel, in professedly repeating
in the seventh verse the words used in the third; the indefi-
nite sing^ar involving, and being equivalent to, the plural.
Verse 7 reads : " Marvel not that I said unto thee. Ye must
be bom anew." (2) The second person plural would also
be suggested by the similar passage in Matt, xviii. 3, " Except
ye be changed and become as little children, ye shall in no
wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." Nothing was more
natural than that in a quotation from memory the language
of these two kindred passages should be somewhat mixed;
and such a confusion of similar passages is frequent in the
writings of the Fathers. This affords an easy explanation
also of Justin's substituting, in agreement with Matthew,
"shall in no wise enter" for "cannot enter," and "kingdom
of heaven" for "kingdom of God." The two passages of
John and Matthew are actually mixed together in a some-
what similar way in a free quotation by Clement of Alex-
andria, a writer who unquestionably used our Gospels alone
as authoritative, — "the four Gospels, which," as he says,
*'have been handed down to us" {Strom, iii. 13, p. 553).*
(3) This declaration of Christ would often be quoted in the
early Christian preaching, in reference to the importance of
baptism ; and the second person plural would thus be natu-
• Cement {Cohort, ad Gentes, c. 9, p. 69) blends Matt, xviii. 3 and John iii. 3 as follows:
'* Except ye again become as little children, and h« horn again {avayEwridfjr€)^ as the Scripture
oidk, jre will in no wise receive him who is truly your Father, and will in no wise ever enter into
At kingdom ol heaven.*'
36 CRITICAL ESSAYS
rally substituted for the indefinite singular, to give greater
directness to the exhortation. So in the Clementine Homi-
lies (xi. 26), and in both forms of the Clementine Epitome
(c. 18, pp. 16, 134, ed. Dressel, Lips. 1859). (4) That this
change of number and person does not imply the use of an
apocryphal Gospel is further shown by the fact that it is
made twice in quoting the passage by Jeremy Taylor, who
in a third quotation also substitutes the plural for the singu-
lar in a somewhat different way.* (See below, p. 42.)
3. The change of eav fiy ug yewTjdij aiHjdev, verSC 3 (or yewj^
merely, verse 5), " Except a man be born anew," or " over
again," into av ^;) dvayewrr^f/re, " Except yc be born again," or
" regenerated " ; in other words, the substitution of avayewdtrdat
for yewda^ai avu^ev, or for the simple verb in verse 5, presents
no real difficulty, though much has been made of it. (i) It
is said that ycwacr&at &v<ji»ev caunot mean "to be bom anew/'
but must mean " to be born /fvm above^ But we have the
clearest philological evidence that avi^?v has the meaning of
"anew," "over again," as well as "from above." In the
only passage in a classical author where the precise phrase,
yz\^a(ydai, hvu^tv, has been pointed out, namely, Artemidorus on
Dreams, i. 13, ed. ReifiE (al. 14), it cannot possibly have any
other meaning. Meyer, who rejects this sense, has fallen
into a strange mistake about the passage in Artemidorus,
showing that he cannot have looked at it. Meaning "from
above" or "from the top'* (Matt, xxvii. 51), then "from the
beginning" (Luke i. 3), hvu^tv is used, with 7ra;uv to strengthen
* Professor James Dnimmond well remarks : " How easily such a change might be made, when
verbal accuracy was not studied* is instructively shewn in Theophylact's p>araphrase [I translate
the Greek ] : ' But I say unto thee, that both thou and every other man whatsoever, unless having
been bom from above \or anew] and of God, ye receive the true faith [//'/. the worthy opinion]
concerning me, are outside of the kingdom."* Chrysostom (also cited by Prof. Drummond)
observes that Christ's words are equivalent to Mv 01' /^v yewjp^y k.t,?,.^ " Except M*« be
bom," etc., but are put in the indefinite form in order to make the discourse less offensive.
Photius, in quoting John iiL 5, substitutes lyi/p for aoi. (See below, p. 36.) I gladly take this
opportunity to call attention to the valuable article by Prof. Dmmmond in the TAsolofica/
RevUw for October, 1875, vol. vii. pp. 471-488, "On the adleged Quotation from the Fourth
Gospel relating to the New Birth, in Justin Martyr, Apol. i. c 61.'* He has treated the ques-
tion with the ability, candor, and cautious accuracy of statement which distingtiish his writings
generally. For the quotation given above, see p. 476 of the Review. I am indebted to him for
several valuable suggestions ; but, to prevent misapprehension as to the extent of this indebt*
edness, I may be permitted to refer to my note on the subject in the American edition of Smith's
Dictionary 0/ th€ Bible, vol. ii. p. 1433, published in 1869, six years before the appearance of
Prof. Drummond's article.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 37
it, to signify "again from the beginning," "all over again"
(Gal. iv. 9, where see the passages from Galen and Hippo-
crates cited by Wetstein, and Wisd. of Sol. xix. 6, where see
Grimm's note), like ^rdP^v kK devripov or Mrepw (Matt. xxvi. 42,
John Xxi. 16), and in the classics tt&Tjv av^Trakiv av'dLq,7:a>jve^apx^.':.
Thus it gets the meaning "anew," "over again"; see the
passages cited by McClellan in his note on John iii. 3.*
(2) 'Avwi^rv was here understood as meaning "again" by the
translators of many of the ancient versions ; namely, the Old
Latin, "denuo," the Vulgate, Coptic, Peshito Syriac {Sup.
ReLy 6th edit, is mistaken about this), iEthiopic, Georgian
(see Malan's The Gospel according to St, Johriy etc.). (3) The
Christian Fathers who prefer the other interpretation, as
Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophylact, recognize the^
fact that the word may have either meaning. The ambi-
guity is also noticed by Chrysostom. (4) 'Kvaytwaa^ai was the
common word in Christian literature to describe the change
referred to. So already in i Pet. i. 3, 23 ; comp. i Pet. ii.
2; and see the context in Justin. (5) This meaning best
suits the connection. Verse 4 represents it as so understood
by Nicodemus : " Can he enter a second timel^ etc. The fact
that John has used the word av(j^Ev in two other passages in
a totally different connection (viz. iii. 31, xix. 11) in the
sense of " from above " is of little weight. He has nowhere
else used it in reference to the new birth to denote that it is
a birth from above : to express that idea, he has used a differ-
*The passages are: Joseph. /(»/. L i8, §3; Socrates in Stobxus, Flor. cxxiv. 41, iv. 135
Meaneke; Harpocration, Lex. 9, y, ava6iKdoa(r3^at ] Pseudo-Basil, Dt Bapt. i. a. $7; Can.
i^KMt. 46, aL 47, al. 39; to which add Origen, In Joan. torn. xx. c. 11, Opp. iv. 322, who gives
the words of Christ to Peter in the legend found in the Acts of Paul : av<^ev ///AA6)
trravpcrf^^vai =s** ii^^ftft crudfigi." I have verified McClellan 's references ( T'^ N.T. etc
voL I. p. aS4, Lond. 1875), and given them in a form in which they may be more easily foimd.
Though many of the best commentators take avw&evhere in the sense of "from above,*'
as Boigel, LCIcke, De Wette, Meyer, Clausen, and so the lexicographers Wahl, Bretschneider,
Robinson, the rendering " anew ** is supported by Chrysostom, Nonnus, Euthymius, Budxus,
Haory Stephen (Tk^s, s. v.), Lnther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Kypke, Krebs, Knapp
{Seri/ia vmr. Arg. \. z88, ed. ada), Kuinoel, Credner {BeUrdget i* 353)> Olshausen, Tholuck,
Neander, Norton, Noyes, Alford, Ewald, Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Luthardt, Weiss, Godet,
Farrar, Watkins, Westoott, and the recent lexicographers, Grimm and Cremer. The word is not
to be nndentood as merely equivalent to "again," *'a second time," but implies an entire
change. Cooipare the use of ei^ tIXo^ in the sense of " completely," and the Ep. of Barnabas,
C i6» § 8 (dted by Bretschneider) : " Having received the forgiveness of our sins, and having
phoed oar hope in the Name, we became new men, created again from the beginning"
{w6Xn> k^ apx^).
38 CRITICAL ESSAYS
ent expression, yewrr&vv<u u ^ew or U rotn^ew, "to be bom [or
begotten] of God," which occurs once in the Gospel (i. 13)
and nine times in the First Epistle, so that the presumption
is that, if he had wished to convey that meaning here, he
would have used here also that unambiguous expression.
But what is decisive as to the main point is the fact that
Justin's word avayEwrr^y is actually substituted for yewrn^Tjui'or&ev
in verse 3, or for the simple jnioTi^y in verse 5, by a large
number of Christian writers who unquestionably quote from
John ; so, besides the Clementine Homilies (xi. 26) and the
Clementine Epitome in both forms (c. 18), to which excep-
tion has been taken with no sufficient reason, Iren^eus (Frag.
35, ed. Stieren, i. 846), Eusebius {/n Isa. i. 16, 17; Migne
xxiv. 96), Athanasius ij)e Incani. c. 14), Basil (Adv, Eunom,
lib. v. Opp. i. 308 (437)), Ephraem Syrus {De Pcmit, Opp.
iii. 183 {avaytwrrdl) avwt^ev)), ChRYSOSTOM (/« 1 Ep, od Cov. XV. 2g,
Opp. X. 378 (440)),* Cyril of Alexandria (In Joan, iii. 5,,
cfavoyrwTi^y J/' i}Jarof /c.r.X., SO PuSCy's Critical cd., Vol. i. p. 2I9;
Aubert has ycw^i^yf^vcJ.) ; Procopius GAZiEUS, Cotnm, in Is, i.
20 (Migne IxXXvii. 1849'*') : kav fiij nq avayewrfdy k^ vdaro^ Ka\
rrveifxart)^ ov fi^ e'ttrrXdif e'tg Ttjv ^fwi?Mav t<jv ovpavuv; PHOTIUS, Ad
Amphiloch, Q. 49 (al. 48) (Migne ci. 369*") : oauniip . . . iXeyev
'A/i3^, afiijv ?Jy(j vfiiv ' iav y.rj rig avayevvrfOij 6C vdarog koI irveifiarogj oifK
e I (TeTiel a era I elg ri/v paaiXeiav rijv ovpavuv^ and SO, probably,
Anastasius Sinaita preserved in a Latin version {Anagog\
Contcmp, in Hcxa'em, lib. iv., Migne Ixxxix. 906, regeneratns ;
contra, col. ^yo^ gcnitusy 916, gencratus)^ and Hesychius of
Jerusalem in a Latin version (/;/ LeviL xx. 9, Migne xciii.
1044, regeneratns ; but col. 974, renaiiis). In the Old Latin
version or versions and the Vulgate, the MSS. are divided
in John iii. 3 between natus and renains, and so in verse 4,
2d clause, between ftasei and renasci; but in verse 5 renatus
f tier it is the unquestionable reading of the Latin versions,
presupposing, apparently, avayewrr^y in the Greek. (See
Tischendorfs 8th critical edition of the Greek Test. /// /oc.)
The Latin Fathers, with the exception of Tertullian and
Cyprian, who have both readings, and of the author Dc-
Rebaptismate (c. 3), in quoting the passage, almost invariably
have renatus,
•Comp. Chrysostom, De Sacerdot. iii. 5, Opp. i. 3*^;/' Ci'j), ci'.rd by Westcotl, Canon cj
the N. T., sth ed., 1881, p. xxx., note i, § 3.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEI 39
We occasionally find avayewTjdffvai, "to be bom again," for
ftwn&mxu^ " to be born," in the first clause of verse 4 ; so
Ephraem Syrus {De Pcenit. Opp. iii. 183), and Cyril of
Alexandria {Glaph, in Exod. lib. iii., Opp. i. a. 341).
From all that has been said, it will be seen that the use of
avayewrjd^t here by Justin is easily explained. Whether avudev
in John really means '* from above *' or " anew " is of little
importance. in its bearing on our question : there can be no
doubt that Justin may have understood it in the latter sense;
• and, even if he did not, the use of the term avayewaaSai here
was very natural, as is shown by the way in which the pas-
sage is quoted by Irenaeus, Eusebius, and many other writers.
4. The next variation, the change of " cannot see " or "enter
into " {ov dhvarat \6eiv or eloe7Mv eif, Lat, non potcst vidcre, or
intrare or introire in) into ** shall not'' or ^^ sliall in no wise
see " or " enter into *' (o\> /^^ M?/, once Wo«, or ov 11^ £iai?MTf or elaiWjire
"f, twice ovK elaeXtvaerai fif, Lat, non vidcbit, or intrabit or intro-
ibit in), is both so natural (comp. Matt, xviii. 3) and so trivial
as hardly to deserve mention. It is perhaps enough to say
that I have noted seventy-one examples of it in the quotations
of this passage by forty-foitr different writers among the
Greek and Latin Fathers. It is to be observed that in most
of the quotations of the passage by th^ Fathers, verses 3 and
5 are mixed in different ways, as might be expected.
5. The change of "kingdom of God'' into "kingdom of
heaven " is perfectly natural, as they are synonymous expres-
sions, and as the phrase " kingdom of heaven *' is used in
the passage of Matthew already referred to, the language of
which was likely to be more or less confounded in recollec-
tion with that of this passage in John. The change is
actually made in several Greek MSS. in the 5th verse of
John, including the Sinaitic, and is even received by Tisch-
endorf into the text, though, I believe, on insufficient grounds.
But a great number of Christian writers in quoting from John
make just the same change; so the Docetist in Hippoly-
Tus {Ref, Har, viii. 10, p. 267), the Clementine Homilies
(xi. 26), the Recognitions (i. 69; vi. 9), the Clementine
Epitome (c. 18) in both forms, iRENiEUS (Frag. 35, ed.
Stieren), Origen in a Latin version twice {Opp, iii. 948 ; iv.
483), the Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 15). Eusebius
40 CRITICAL ESSAYS
twice (In Isa, i. i6, 17; iii. i, 2; Migne xxiv. 96, 109),
Pseud-Athanasius {Quccst. ad Antioch, loi, Opp. ii. 291),
Ephraem Syrus {Dc Pccnit, Opp. iii. 183), Chrysostom five
or six times {Opp. iv. 681 (789) ; viii. 143'*'' (165), 144^ (165).
144'* (166) ), Theodoret {QucBSt, in Num, 35, Migne Ixxx.
385), Basil of Seleucia {Orat. xxviii. 3), Procopius, Pho-
Tius, Anastasius Sixaita in a Latin version three times
(Migne Ixxxix. 870, 906, 916), Hesychius of Jerusalem in
a Latin version twice (Migne xciii. 974, 1044), Theodorus
Abucara (Opuscc, c. 17, Migne xcvii. 1541), Terxullian
(Dc BapU c. 13), Anon. De Rcbaptismate (c. 3), Philastrius
{Hcer, 120 and 148, ed. Oehler), Chromatius (/;/ Matt. iii. 14,
Migne xx. 329), Jerome twice {Ep. 69, al. 83, and In Isa. i. 16 ;
Migne xxii. 660, xxv. 35), Augustine seven times (Opp. ii.
1360, 1361 ; V. 1745 ; vi. 327; vii. 52S; ix. 630; x. 207, ed.
Bened. 2da), and a host of other Latin Fathers.
It should be observed that many of the writers whom I
have cited combine three or four of these variations from
John. It may be well to give, further, some additional illus-
trations of the freedom with which this passage is sometimes
quoted and combined with others. One example has already
been given from Clement of Alexandria. (See No. 2.) Ter-
TULLiAN (De Bapt. 12) quotes it thus: "The Lord says,
Except a man shall be born of water, he hath not life,'' — Nisi
natus ex aqua quis erit, non habet vitam. Similarly Odo
Cluniacensis (Mar. in yob. iii. 4, Migne cxxxiii. 135): "Ve-
ritas autem dicit. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu
sanctOy non habet vitam cetemamJ* Anastasius Sinai ta, as
preserved in a Latin version (Anagog. Contempt, in Hexaem.
lib. v., Migne Ixxxix. 916), quotes the passage as follows:
"dicens. Nisi quis fuerit generatus ex aqua et Spiritu qui
fertur super aquam, non intrabit in regnum ccelorum'' The
Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 15) as edited by Cotelier
and Ueltzen read : " For the Lord saith. Except a man be
baptized with ((SanTia^ k^) water and the Spirit, he sha/l in
no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven!* Here, indeed,
Lagarde, with two MSS., edits yewrr^rj for fSaTTTur^y, but the
more difficult reading may well be genuine. Compare
Euthymius Zigabenus (Panopl, pars ii. tit. 23, Adv. Bogo-
milos, c 16, in the Latin version in Max. Bibl. Patrum, xix.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 41
224), ** Nisi quis baptisatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto,
non intrabit in regnum Dei," and see Jeremy Taylor, as
quoted below. Didymus of Alexandria gives as the words
of Christ (tlictv 6i), "Ye must be born of water'' {De Trin, ii.
12, p. 250, Migne xxxix. 672). It will be seen that all these
examples purport to be express quotations.
My principal object in this long discussion has been to
show how false is the assumption on which the author of
Supernatural Religion proceeds in his treatment of Justin's
quotations, and those of other early Christian writers. But
the fallacy of his procedure may, perhaps, be made more
striking by some illustrations of the way in which the very
passage of John which we have been considering is quoted
by a modem English writer. I have noted nine quotations
of the passage by Jeremy Taylor, who is not generally sup-
posed to have used many apocryphal Gospels. All of these
differ from the common English version, and only two of
them are alike. They exemplify all the peculiarities of vari-
ation from the common text upon which the writers of the
Tiibingen school and others have laid such stress as proving
that Justin cannot have here quoted John. I will number
these quotations, with a reference to the volume and page
in which they occur in Heber's edition of Jeremy Taylor's
Works, London, 1828, 15 vols. 8vo, giving also such specifi-
cations as may enable one to find the passages in any other
edition of his complete Works ; and, without copying them
all in full, will state their peculiarities. No. i. Life of Christ,
Part L Sect. IX. Disc. VI. Of Baptism, part i. § 12. Heber,
vol. ii. p. 240. — No. 2. Ibid, Disc. VI. Of baptizing Infants,
part ii. § 26. Heber, ii. 288. — No. 3. Ibid, § 32. Heber, ii.
292. — No. 4. Liberty of Prophesying, Sect. XVIII. § 7.
Heber, viii. 153. — No. 5. Ibid. Ad 7. Heber, viii. 190. — No.
6. Ibid, Ad 18. Heber, viii. 191. — No. 7. Ibid, Ad 18.
Heber, viii. 193. — No. 8. Disc, of Confirm. Sect. I. Heber,
3d. 238. — No. 9. Ibid, Heber, xi. 244.
We may notice the following points : —
I. He has "unless" for "except," uniformly. This is a
trifling variation ; but, reasoning after the fashion of Super-
42 CRITICAL ESSAYS
natural Religion, we should say that this uniformity of vari-
ation could not be referred to accident, but proved that he
quoted from a different text from that of the authorized
version.
2. He has "kingdom of heaven** for "kingdom of God^*
six times ; viz., Nos. i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.
3. *^ Heaven'* simply for "kingdom of God" once; No. 6.
4. " Shall not enter " for " cannot enter " four times ; Nos.
4» S> 7» 8; comp. also No. 6.
5. The second person plural, ^^, for the third person sin-
gular, twice ; Nos. 3, 7.
6. ''Baptized with water'* for ** bom of water" once;
No. 7.
7. "Born again by water" for "born of water" once;
No. 6.
8. ''Both ^ water and the Spirit " for " ^ water and ofth^
Spirit" once; No. 9.
9. "Of" is omitted before "the Spirit" six times; Nos.
I, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8.
10. "Holy" is inserted before "Spirit" twice ; Nos. i, 8.
No. I reads, for example, " Unless a man be born of water
and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
heaven!*
Stipematural Religion insists that, when Justin uses such
an expression as " Christ said," we may expect a verbally
accurate quotation.* Now nothing is more certain than that
the Christian Fathers frequently use such a formula when
they mean to give merely the substance of what Christ said,
and not the exact words ; but let us apply our author's prin-
ciple to Jeremy Taylor. No. 3 of his quotations reads thus:
"Therefore our Lord hath defined it, Unless ye be born of
water and the Spirit, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of
heaven!*
No. 6 reads, " Though Christ said, None but those that are
bom again by water and the Spirit shall enter into heaven!*
No. 7 reads, " For Christ never said, Unless ye be baptized
* *' Justin, in giving the words of Jesus, clearly professed to make an exact quotation." — Sw
f^rnaiurai Rtligicn^ ii. 309, 7ih ed.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 43
Ttnth fire and the Spirit, ye shall not, enter into the kingdom
of heaveUy but of water and the Spirit he did say it!'
I will add one quotation from the Book of Common Prayer,
which certainly must be quoting from another apocryphal
Gospel, different from those used by Jeremy Taylor (he evi-
dently had several), inasmuch as it professes to give the very
words of Christ, and gives them twice in precisely the same
form : —
"Our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the
kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of
water and of the Holy Ghost^ (Public Baptism of Infants^
and Baptism of those of Riper Years!)
It has been shown, I trust, that in this quotation of the
language of Christ respecting regeneration the verbal dififer-
ences between Justin and John are not such as to render it
improbable that the former borrowed from the latter. The
variations of phraseology are easily accounted for, and are
matched by similar variations in writers who unquestionably
used the Gospel of John.
The positive reasons for believing that Justin derived his
quotation from this source are, (i) the fact that in no other
report of the teaching of Christ except that of John do we
find this figure of the new birth ; (2) the insistence in both
Justin and John on the necessity of the new birth to an en-
trance into the kingdom of heaven ; (3) its mention in both
in connection with baptism ; (4) and last and most important
of all, the fact that Justin's remark on the impossibility of a
second natural birth is such a platitude in the form in which
he presents it, that we cannot regard it as original. We can
only explain its introduction by supposing that the language
of Christ which he quotes was strongly associated in his
memory with the question of Nicodemus as recorded by
John.* Other evidences of the use of the Fourth Gospel by
Justin are the following : —
{a) While Justin's conceptions in regard to the Logos were
undoubtedly greatly affected by Philo and the Alexandrian
*EngeIhardt in his recent work on Justin observes: **This remark sets aside all doubt of the
to the foarth Gospel." — Das CkrisUntkum Jusiins des Miirtyrtrsy Erlangen, 1878.
44 CRITICAL ESSAYS
philosophy, the doctrine gi the incarnation of the Logos was
utterly foreign to that philosophy, and could only have been
derived, it would seem, from the Gospel of John.* He ac-
cordingly speaks very often in language similar to that of
John (i. 14) of the Logos as "made flesh," f or as "having
become man." J That in the last phrase he should prefer
the term "man" to the Hebraistic "flesh "can excite no
surprise. With reference to the deity of the Logos and his
instrumental agency in creation, compare also especially
Apol. ii. 6, " through him God created all things " {dc avrw Tzdvra
iKTiae), Dial, c. 56, and ApoL i. 63, with John i. 1-3. Since
the Fathers who immediately followed Justin, as Theophilus,
Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, unquestionably founded their
doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos on the Gospel of
John, the presumption is that Justin did the same. He pro-
fesses to hold his view, in which he owns that some Chris-
p. 350. Weiis&cker is equally strong. — Unteriuchungtn ilSer dU tvang. Gtschichte, Gotha,
1864, pp. 228, 229.
Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, in the very interesting article Gospel* in vol. x. of the ninth edition of
the Encyclopaedia Britannica, objects that Justin cannot have quoted the Fourth Gospel here,
because "he is arguing for baptism by tvo/^r," and "it is inconceivable that . . . he should not
only quote inaccurately, but omit the very words [John iii. 5] that were best adapted to support
his argument." (p. 821.) But Justin is not addressing an " argument *' to the Roman Emperor
and Senate for the necessity of baptism by water, but simply giving an account of Christian rites
and Christian worship. And it is not the mere rite of baptism by water as such, but the necessity
of the new birth through repentance and a voluntary change of life on the part of him who dedi-
cates himself to God by this rite, on which Justin lays the main stress, — "the baptism of the soul
from wrath and covetcrasness, envy and hatred." (Comp. Dial, cc 13, 14, 18.) Moreover, the
nmple word avayswijdfjrr ^ as he uses it in the immediate context, and as it was often nsed,
includes the idea of baptism. This fact alone answers the objection. A perusal of the chapter in
which Justin treats the subject {Apol. i. 61) will show that it was not at all necessary to his pur-
pose in quoting the words of Christ to introduce the r^ v^aro^. It would almost seem as if
Dr. Abbott must have been thinking of the Clementine Homilies (xL 24-37; xiii. ai), where
excessive importance it attached to the mere element of water.
•See Delitzsch, Mtssianic Propfuci*$ (Edin. 1880), p. 115. See Philo, Do Prof. c. 19,
prol. L p. 561, ed. M.
\ ac^}K07roi^ei^ ; e.g^., ApoL c 12^ 6 ^yo?, flf Tiva rp&rrov aapKOTToiffSel^ ivOpuiroc
^'kyovev. So c 66 bit; Dial. cc. 45, 84, 87, 100. Comp. Dial. cc. 48 ("was bom a man of like
nature with us, having flesh "), 70 (" became embodied ").
XhvQfHjno^ yev6fJLevo^\ Apol. i. cc. 5 ("the Logos himself whe took form and became
man"), 23 to, 32. 4*. 5°. 53. H ^" ! ^M- "• c. 13; Dial. cc. 48, 57, 64, 67, 6S3«, 76, 8$, 100,
101, 125 bit. I have availed myself in this and the preceding note of the references given by Pro-
fessor Dmnunond in his article "Justin Martyr an^ the Fourth Gospel," in the TAtol. Revirw tor
April and July, 1877; see vol. xiv., p. 172. To tnis valuable essay I am much indebted, and shall
have occasion to refer to it repeatedly. Professor Drummond compares at length Justin's doctrine
of the Logos with that of the proem to the Fourth Gospel, and decides rightly, I think, that the
statement of the former " is, beyond all question, in a more developed form" than that of the latter.
In John it is important to observe that ?.6yo<; is used with a meaning derived from the sense of
"word" rather than "reason," as in Philo and Justin. The subject is too large to be entered
upon here.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 45
tians do not agree with him, " because we have been com-
manded by Christ himself not to follow the doctrines of men,
but those which were proclaimed by the blessed prophets
and taught by him." {Dial, c. 48.) Now, as Canon Westcott
observes, " the Synoptists do not anywhere declare Christ's
pre-exist ence." * And where could Justin suppose himself
to have found this doctrine taught by Christ except in the
Fourth Gospel ? Compare Apol. i. 46 : " That Christ is the
first-bom of God, being the Logos [the divine Reason] of
which every race of men have been partakers [comp. John i.
4» S» 9]> we have been taught and have declared before. And
those who have lived according to Reason are Christians,
even though they were deemed atheists ; as, for example,
Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them among the
Greeks."
ip) But more may be said. In one place (DiaL c. 105)
Justin, according to the natural construction of his language
and the course of his argument, appears to refer to the
" Memoirs '* as the source from which he and other Chris-
tians had learnt that Christ as the Logos was the "only-
begotten " jSon of God, a title applied to him by John alone
among the New Testament writers ; see John i. 14, 18 ; iii.
16, 18. The passage reads, "For that he was the only-
begotten of the Father of the universe, having been begotten
by him in a peculiar manner as his Logos and Power, and
having afterwards become man through the virgin, as we have
learned from the Memoirs, I showed before." It is possible
that the clause, "as we have learned from the Memoirs,"
refers not to the main proposition of the sentence, but only
to the fact of the birth from a virgin ; but the context as
well as the natural construction leads to a different view,
•
as Professor Drummond has ably shown in the article in
the Theological Review (xiv. 178-182) already referred to in
a note. He observes : —
" The passage is part of a very'tong comparison, which Justin insti-
tutes between the twenty-second Psalm and the recorded events of
•" Introd. to the Gospel of St. John," in Tht Holy Biblt . . . with . . . Commtniary, etc,
ed. by F. a Cook, A^ T. vol. ii. (1880), p. Ixxxiv.
46 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Christ's life. For the purposes of this comparison he refers to or
quotes " the Gospel " once, and " the Memoirs " ten times, and further
refers to the latter three times in the observations which immediately
follow. . . . They are appealed to here because they furnish the succes-
sive steps of the proof by which the Psalm is shown to be prophetic."
In this case the words in the Psalm (xxii. 20, 21) which
have to be illustrated are, " Deliver my soul from the sword,
and my only-begotten [Justin perhaps read '^ thy only-
begotten '*] from the power of the dog. Save me from the
mouth of the lion, and my humiliation from the horns of
unicorns." "These words,*' Justin remarks, "are again in a
similar manner a teaching and prophecy of the things that
belonged to him [rwv hvn^v avri^ and that were going to hap-
pen. For that he was the only-begotten,*' etc., as quoted
above. Professor Drummond well observes : —
"There is here no ground of comparison whatever except in the word
fiovoyevij^ [ " only-begotten '']. ... It is evident that Justin understood
this as referring to Christ ; and accordingly he places the same word
emphatically at the beginning of the sentence in which he proves the
reference of this part of the Psalm to Jesus. For the same reason he
refers not only to events, but to ra bvra avT<ft [" the things that belonged
to him "]. These are taken up first in the nature and title of fwvoyevijcj
which immediately suggests ?.6}'og and <Jtmj"/f [** Logos " and "power"],
while the events are introduced and discussed afterwards. The allusion
here to the birth through the virgin has nothing to do with the quotation
from the Old Testament, and is probably introduced simply to show how
Christ, although the only-begotten Logos, was nevertheless a man. If
the argument were, — These words allude to Christ, because the Me
moirs tell us that he was bom from a virgin, — it would be utterly inco-
herent. If it were, — These words allude to Christ, because the Me-
moirs say that he was the only-begotten, — it would be perfectly valid
from Justin's point of view. It would not, however, be suitable for a
Jew, for whom the fact that Christ was ftovnyevr/g, not being an historical
event, had to rest upon other authority ; and therefore Justin changing his
usual form, says that he had already explained to him a doctrine which
the Christians learned from the Memoirs. It appears to me, then, most
probable, that the peculiar Johannine title //ovoyrrvc existed in the Gos-
pels used by Justin. *
In what follows, Prof. Drummond answers Thoma's ob-
• Justin also designates Christ as " the only-begotten Son " in a fragment of his work again*
Marcion, preserved by Irenasus, //or. iv. 6. § 2. Comp. Justin, j4/i0/. i. c. 23 ; ii. c. 6
Dia/. c. 48-
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 47
jections * to this view of the passage, correcting some mis-
translations. In the expression, " as I showed before,** the
reference may be, not to c. lOO, but to c. 6i and similar pas-
sages, where it is argued that the Logos was " begotten by
God before all creatures," which implies a unique generation.
(c) In the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 88), Justin cites as
the words of John the Baptist : " I am not the Christ, but
the voice of one crying ** ; ovk eifii 6 Xpiard^^ aX?M <}>uv^ potjvTDc-
This declaration, " I am not the Christ," and this application
to himself of the language of Isaiah, are attriouted to the
Baptist only in the Gospel of John (i. 20, 23 ; comp. iii. 28).
Hilgenfeld recognizes here the use of this Gospel.
(if) Justin says of the Jews, ** They are justly upbraided . . .
by Christ himself as knowing neither the Father nor the
Son" (Apol i. 63). Comp. John viii. 19, "Ye neither know
me nor my Father " ; and xvi. 3, " They have not known the
Father nor me." It is true that Justin quotes in this con-
nection Matt. xi. 27 ; but his language seems to be in-
fluenced by the passages in John above cited, in which alone
the Jews are directly addressed.
(e) Justin says that " Christ healed those who were blind
from their birth," rwf U yever^g wnpovq {Dial, c. 49 ; comp.
ApoL i. 22, kK yivtT^q TTovTipoi)!:, whcre several editors, though
not Otto, would substitute rrnpov^ by conjecture). There
seems to be a reference here to John ix. i, where we have
Tv^yjbviK ynferrj^, the phrase f'/c ynrrr/c, "from birth," being pecu-
liar to John among the Evangelists, and 7r;7/w>f being a com-
mon synonyme of tv^p^c ; comp. the Apostolical Constitutions
V. 7. § I7> where we have 6 u yeverTjq nvp6^ in a clear reference
•In Hilgenfeld's ZeiUchrifl fXr wtss. Theol, 1875, xviii. 551 ff. For other discussions of
tins passage, ona may see Semisch, Dig apost. Denha^rdigkeiten u.s.w., p. 188 f. ; Hilgenfeld,
Krit. UniersnckMngen u.8.w., p. 300 f. {versus Semisch); Riggenbach, DU Zeugnisief. d. Ev.
j0kanmiay Basel, 1866, p. 163 £.; Tischendorf, Wann wureUn unscre EvangelUn ver/asst?
p. $3, 4e Aufl. But Professor Dnimmond's treatment of the question is the most thorough.
Grimm iTfuol, Stud. u. ICri/., 1851, p. 687 ff.) agrees with Semisch that it is *' in the highest
degree aibitrary " to refer Justin's expression, " as we have learned from the Memoirs," merely
to the participial clause which mentions the birth from a virgin ; but like Thoma, who agrees
with him that the reference is to the designation " only-begotten," he thinks that Justin has in
mind merely the confession of Peter (Matt. xvi. 16), referred to in Dial c. 100. This rests on the
false assumption that Justin can only be referring back to c. 100, and makes him argue that "the
Son " merely is equivalent to "the only-begotten Son "
48 CRITICAL ESSAYS
to this passage of John, and the Clementine Homilies xix.
22, where irepi rov CK yever^g Trrjpdv occurs also in a similar
reference.* John is the only Evangelist who mentions the
healing of any congenital infirmity.
(/) The exact coincidence between Justin {Apol. i. 52;
comp. Dial, cc. 14 (quoted as from Hosed) ^ 32, 64, 118) and
John (xix. 37) in citing Zechariah xii. 10 in a form dififercnt
from the Septuagint, h-^vrai t\g w k^EKhnnaav^ "they shall
look on him^whom they pierced," instead of empxhinvrat irpbg fd
avd' Civ KOTupx^oavTo^ is remarkable, and not sufficiently ex-
plained by supposing both to have borrowed from Rev. i. 7,
"every eye shall see him, and they who pierced him."
Much stress has been laid on this coincidence by Semisch
(p. 200 ff.) and Tischendorf (p. 34) ; but it is possible, if not
rather probable, that Justin and John have independently
followed a reading of the Septuagint which had alread)
attained currency in the first century as a correction of tht;
text in conformity with the Hebrew.f
(g) Compare Apo/. i. 13 (cited by Prof. Drummond, p. 323),
"Jesus Christ who became our teacher of these things and
was bom to this end ("c rovro yewr^ivra)^ who was crucified
under Pontius Pilate," with Christ's answer to Pilate (John
xviii. 37), "To this end have I been born, elg tovto yeyhnnifjuu^
. . . that I might bear witness to the truth."
(//) Justin says (Dial. c. 56, p. 2;^6 D), " I affirm that he
never did or spake any thing but what he that made the
world, above whom there is no other God, willed that he
should both do and speak " ; J comp. John viii. 28, 29 : " As
•The context in Justin, as Otto justly remarks, proves that TZTfpoitg must here rignify
*' blind," not " maimed " ; comp. the quotation from Isa. xxxv. 5, which precedes, and the " causing
this one to see," which follows. Keim's exclamation — " not a blind man at all I *' — would have
been spared, if he had attended to this. (See his Gtsck. Jesu von NoMora, i. 139, note; i. 189,
Eng. trans.)
t See Credncr, Btitrdge u.s.w., ii. 293 ff. See further on this quotation, p. 66, infra.
t Dr. Davidson {Introd. to the Study 0/ the N. T.y London, 1868, ii. 376) translates the last
clause, '' intended that he should do and to aisociato with^* (sic). Though the meaning "to
converse with," and then "to speak," " to say," is not assigned to dfti?j:tv in Liddell and Scott,
or Rost and Palm's edition of Passow, Justin in the very next sentence uses Xa/^lv as an equiva-
lent substitute, and this meaning is common in the later Greek. See Sophocles, Grtek Lex. s.v.
otu/.ku. Of Dr. Davidson's translation 1 must confess my inability to make either grammar or
sense.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 49
the Father taught me, I speak these things; and ... I
always do the things that please him " ; also John iv. 34; v.
I9» 30; vii. 16; xii. 49, 50. In the language of Trypho
which immediately follows (p. 277 A), " We do not suppose
that you represent him to have said or done or spoken any-
thing contrary to the will of the Creator of the universe,"
we are particularly reminded of John xii. 49, — *'The Father
who sent me hath himself given me a commandment, what I
should say and what I should speaks
(/) Referring to a passage of the Old Testament as signi-
fying that Christ " was to rise from the dead on the third
day after his crucifixion," Justin subjoins (Dial. c. icx)),
which he received from his Father," or more literally,
which [thing] he has, having received it from his Father,"
GOTO TW) Trarpdc ?Miiuv ix^^. A reference here to John x. 18
seems probable, where Jesus says respecting his life, "I
have authority (k^ovaiav) to lay it down, and I have authority
to receive it again {it&>uv Tia^eiv avrrrv) ; this charge I received
from my Father " (iXa^ Trapd rw irarpSg //ot').
(i) Justin says, "We were taught that the bread and
wine were the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made
flesh." (Apo/, i. c. 66.) This use of the term "flesh " instead
of "body" in describing the bread of the Eucharist suggests
John vi. 51-56.
(/) Professor Drummond notes that Justin, like John (iii.
14, 15), regards the elevation of the brazen serpent in the
wilderness as typical of the crucifixion (Apol, i. c. 60 ; Dial,
cc. 91, 94, 131), and in speaking of it says that it denoted
" salvation to those who flee for refuge to him who sent his
crucified Son into the world" (Dial, c. 91).* "Now this
idea of God's sending his Son into the world occurs in the
same connection in John iii. 17, and strange as it may ap-
pear, it is an idea which in the New Testament is peculiar
to John." Prof. Drummond further observes that "in the
four instances in which John speaks of Christ as being sent
into the world, he prefers cTroaraP^, so that Justin's phrase is
* Or, as it U expressed in Dia/. c. 94, " salvation to those who believt in him who was to die
•ffwigh thb sign, the cross,*' which comes nearer to John iii. 15.
50 CRITICAL ESSAYS
not entirely coincident with the Johannine. But the use of
Tf//T<j ["to send"] itself is curious. Except by John, it is
applied to Christ in the New Testament only twice, whereas
John uses it [thus] twenty-five times. Justin's language,
therefore, in the thought which it expresses, in the selec-
tion of words, and in its connection, is closely related to
John's, and has no other parallel in the New Testament."
(TheoL Rev, xiv. 324.) Compare also DiaL c. 140, "accord-
ing to the will of the Father who sent him," etc., and DiaL
c. 17, "the only blameless and righteous Light sent from
God to men." (Prof. Drummond seems to have overlooked
Gal. iv. 4.)
(w) Liicke, Otto, Semisch, Keim, Mangold, and Drum-
mond are disposed to find a reminiscence of John i. 13 in
Justin's language where, after quoting from Genesis xlix. 11,
he says, " since his blood was not begotten of human seed,
but by the will of God" {DiaL c. 63; comp. the similar
language Apol, i. 32; DiaL cc. 54, "by the power of God";
j6). They suppose that Justin referred John i. 13 to Christ,
following an early reading of the passage, namely, 6f . . .
iytwi]^, "who was bom " \or "begotten"] instead of "who
were born." We find this reading in Irenaeus {Hcer. iii. 16.
§ 2; 19. § 2), Tertullian {De Came Christi cc. 19, 24),
Ambrose once, Augustine once, also in Codex Veronensis
(b) of the Old Latin, and some other authorities. Tertullian
indeed boldly charges the Valentinians with corrupting the
text by changing the singular to the plural. Ronsch, whom
no one will call an "apologist," remarks, "The citation of
these words . . . certainly belongs to the proofs that Justin
Martyr knew the Gospel of John." * I have noticed this, in
deference to these authorities, but am not confident that
there is any reference in Justin's language to John i. 13.
(«) Justin says (Dial. c. %^)^ " The Apostles have written "
that at the baptism of Jesus " as he came up from the water
the Holy Spirit as a dove lighted upon him." The descent
of the Holy Spirit as a dove is mentioned by the Apostles
Matthew and John (Matt. iii. 16; John i. 32, 33). This is
*D<u neue Testament TertuUians^ Leipz. iS/z, p. 654.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 5 1
the only place in which Justin uses the expression "the
Apostles have written."
{0) Justin says {Dial, c. 103) that Pilate sent Jesus to
Herod bound. The binding is not mentioned by Luke ; but
if Justin used the Gospel of John, the mistake is easily
explained through a confusion in memory of Luke xxiii. 7
with John xviii. 24 (comp. ver. 1 2) ; and this seems the most
natural explanation ; see however Matt, xxvii. 2 ; Mark xv. i.
Examples of such a confusion of different passages repeatedly
occur in Justin's quotations from the Old Testament, as also
of his citing the Old Testament for facts which it does not
contain.*
{p) The remark of Justin that the Jews dared to call
Jesus a magician (comp. Matt. ix. 34 ; xii. 24) and a deceiver
vf the people (P^orr^vov) reminds one strongly of John vii. 12 ;
see however also Matt, xxvii. 63. — "Through his stripes,*'
says Justin (DiaL c. 17), "there is healing to those who
through him come to the Father," which suggests John xiv.
6, " No man cometh to the Father but through me " ; but
the reference is uncertain; comp. Eph. ii. 18, ^nd Heb. vii.
25 with the similar expression in DiaL c. 43. — So also
it is not clear that in the TpooKwovfiev, ?.d}v kqI aktjdetg, nfiovreg
{Apol. i. 6) there is any allusion to John iv. 24. f — I pass
over sundry passages where Bindemann, Otto, Semisch,
Thoma, Drummond and others have found resemblances
more or less striking between the language of Justin and
*See, for example, A/ol. i. 44, where the words in Deut. xxx. 15, 19, are represented as
addreaaed to Adam (comp. Gen. u. 16, 17); and A/o!. i. 60, where Justin refers to Num. xxi.
8, 9 for various particulars found only in his own imagination. The extraordinary looseness with
which he quotes Plato here (as elsewhere) may also be noted (see the Titrueus c. 12, p. 36 B, C).
On Justin's quotations from the Old Testament, which are largely marked by the same character-
istics as his quotations from the Gospels, see Credner, Beitrlige u.s.w,, vol. ii. (1838); Norton,
Gtnumeneu^\.c.^\. 213 ff.,andAddit. Notes, p.ccxviii. ff.,2ded., i846(ist ed. 1S37); Semisch, Z>2^
t^ost. DenknMrdigkeiUn u.s.w. (1848), p. 239 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, /fr/^. U titer sue hutifren (1850),
p. 46£r. ; Westoott, CanoHy p. 121 if., 172 if., 4th ed, (1875) ; Sanday, The Gospels in tht Second
Century (1876), pp. 40 ff., iii ff.
t Grimm, howerer, finds here "an unmistakable reminiscence" of John iv. 24. He thinks
Justin used A<Jy^ for Trvei'fiari and rifiuvrec ^o^ TzpoaKwoxrvret^ because irvrvfia and
vpooKWOVfiev immediately precede. {Tktol. Stud. u. Krit.y 1851, p. 691.) But P^yo> Koi
a)u^i^ seem to mean simply, " in accordance with reason and truth " ; comp. Apol. i. 6i3, cited
by Otto, also c 13, fura "kdyov Tifjiofiev.
52 CRITICAL ESSAYS
John, leaving them to the not very tender mercies of Zeller *'
and Hilgenfeld. f
(^) Justin's vindication of Christians for not keeping the
Jewish Sabbath on the ground that ** God has carried on the
same administration of the universe during that day as
during all others " (Dial. c. 29, comp. c. 23) is, as Mr. Norton
observes, **a thought so remarkable, that there can be little
doubt that he borrowed it from what was said by our Saviour
when the Jews were enraged at his having performed a
miracle on the Sabbath: — *My Father has been workihg
hitherto as I am working.*" — His argument also against the
observance of the Jewish Sabbath from the fact that circum-
cision was permitted on that day may (Dial. c. 27) have been
borrowed from John vii. 22, 23.
(r) I will notice particularly only one more passage, in
which Professor Drummond proposes an original and very
plausible explanation of a difficulty. In the larger Apology
(c. 35), as he observes, the following words are quoted from
Isaiah (Iviii. 2), aWwai fie vvv Kphiv, ** they now ask of me
judgment " ; and in evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled
in Christ, Justin asserts, " they mocked him, and set him on
the judgment-seat (jKddianv t:rt fi/'/fiarnc)^ and said. Judge for
us." This proceeding is nowhere recorded in our Gospels,
but in John xix. 13 we read, "Pilate therefore brought Jesus
out, and sat on the judgment-seat" (mi kKaOtaev iTri /if/fiarog).
But the words just quoted in the Greek, the correspondence
of which with those of Justin will be noticed, admit in them-
selves the rendering, "and set hivi on the judgment-seat"; %
and what was more natural, as Prof. Drummond remarks,
than that Justin, in his eagerness to find a fulfilment of the
prophecy, should take them in this sense } " He might then
add the statement that the people said Kpnw i)mv ['judge
for us'] as an obvious inference from the fact of Christ's
having been placed on the tribunal, just as in an earlier
chapter (c. 32) he appends to the synoptic account the circum-
*DU Husseren Ztugnisse . . . des vierten Evang.^ in the Theol. yahrb\icher (TUbingen)
1845, P* ^<^ ff*
t Kritiukt UntersuckuHgtn u.s.w., p. 302 f.
X Dr. Hort has pointed out to me that Justin uses the word transitively in DitU. 33, Kodl^ovra
ivritv } V fie^ig airroi', comp. Eph. i. 20, though in the New Testament it is commonly intran-
sitive. S^e a!so its use with reference to judges, I. Cor. vi. 4.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 53
Stance that the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem was
bound to a vine, in order to bring the event into connection
with Genesis xlix. ii." {TheoL RevieWy xiv. 328.)
These evidences of Justin*s use of the Gospel of John are
strengthened somewhat by an indication, which has been
generally overlooked, of his use of the First Epistle of John.
In I John iii. i we read, according to the text now adopted
by the best critics, as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford, Westcott and Hort, " Behold what love the Father
hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children
of God ; and we are so " ; Iva rkKva dmv K?jjOu}pev, koI la/ih.
This addition to the common text, Kal hfiiv, "and we are,"
is supported by a great preponderance of external evidence.
Compare now Justin (Dial. c. 123) : "We are both called true
children of God, and we are so " ; kqI Beqv r(Ki>a ah^iva Ka/Mfieea
ml hfdv. The coincidence seems too remarkable to be acci-
dental. Hilgenfeld takes the same view {Einleit. in d. N. 7".,
p. 69), and so Ewald (Die johan. Schriften, ii. 395, Anm. 4).
It also deserves to be considered that, as Justin wrote a
work "Against all Heresies" {ApoL i. 26), among which he
certainly included those of Valentinus and Basilides {Dial.
c. 35 ; cf. Tertull. Adv. Valentiniafios, c. 5), he could hardly
have been ignorant of a book which, according to Irenaeus,
the Valentinians used plenissime, and to which the Basilidians
and apparently Basilides himself also appealed (Hippol. Rcf.
Hcer, vii. 22, 27). Credner recognizes the weight of this
argument.* It can only be met by maintaining what is
altogether improbable, that merely the later Valentinians
and Basilidians made use of the Gospel, — a point which we
shall examine hereafter.
In judging of the indications of Justin's use of the Fourth
Gospel, the passages cited in addition to those which relate
to his Logos doctrine will strike different persons differently.
There will be few, however, I think, who will not feel that
the one first discussed (that relating to the new birth) is in
itself almost a decisive proof of such a use, and that the one
relating to John the Baptist (c) is also strong. In regard to
* Geschichtt dts nguiest. Kanon (i860), p. 15 f. ; comp. pp. 9, 12.
54 CRITICAL ESSAYS
not a few others, while the possibility of accidental agree-
ment must be conceded, the probability is decidedly against
this, and the accumulated probabilities form an argument of
no little weight. It is not then, I believe, too much to say,
that the strong presumption from the universal reception of
our four Gospels as sacred books in the time of Irenaeus that
Justin's " Memoirs of Christ composed by Apostles and their
companions " were the same books, is decidedly confirmed
by these evidences of his use of the Fourth Gospel. We
will next consider the further confirmation of this fact
afforded by writers who flourished between the time of
Justin and Irenaeus, and then notice some objections to the
view which has been presented.
The most weighty testimony is that of Tatian, the Assyr-
ian, a disciple of Justin. His literary activity may be placed
at about a.d. 155-170 (Lightfoot). In his ** Address to the
Greeks " he repeatedly quotes the Fourth Gospel, though
without naming the author, in one case using the expression
(rb elpT/fuvov) which is scvcral times employed in the New
Testament (e.g-. Acts ii. 16; Rom. iv. 18) in introducing a
quotation from the Scriptures ; see his Orat. ad Grcec, c. 13,
" And this then is that which hath been said. The darkness
comprehendeth \or overcometh] not the light " (John i. 5) ;
see also c. 19 (John i. 3) ; c. 4 (John iv. 24).* Still more
important is the fact that he composed a Harmony of our
Four Gospels which he called the Diatessaron {i.e. "the
Gospel made out of Four "). This fact is attested by Euse-
bius {Hist. EccL iv. 29),! Epiphanius {Hcer, xlvi. i), who,
however, writes from hearsay, and Theodoret, who in his
work on Heresies {Hcer. Fab. i. 20) says that he found more
than two hundred copies of the book held in esteem in his
diocese, and substituted for it copies of our Four Gospels.
• Even Zellcr does not dispute that Tatian quotes the Fourth Gospel, and ascribed it to the-
Apostle John. {Theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 158.) Cf. Volkmar, Urzprutfg, u.s.w., p. 35.
t An expression used by Euscbius (oiV o/M' oTwf, literally, " I know not how") has been
misunderstood by many as implying that he had not seen the work ; but Lightfoot has shown
conclusively that this inference is wholly unwarranted. It only implies that the plan of the work
seemed strange to him. See Contemf>orary Review for May, 1877, p. 1136, where Lightfoot
dtes 26 examples of this use of the phrase from the work of Ohgen against Celsus.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 55
He tells us that Tatian, who is supposed to have prepared
the Harmony after he became %, Gnostic Encratite, had " cut
away the genealogies and such other passages as show the
Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh/*
But notwithstanding this mutilation, the work seems to have
been very popular in the orthodox churches of Syria as a
convenient compendium. The celebrated Syrian Father,
Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa, who died a.d. 373, wrote a
commentary on it, according to Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who
flourished in the last part of the twelfth century. Bar-Salibi
was well acquainted with the work, citing it in his own
Commentary on the Gospels, and distinguishing it from the
Diatessaron of Ammonius, and from a later work by Elias
Salamensis, also called Aphthonius. He mentions that it
began with John i. i — "In the beginning was the Word."
(See Assemani, Biblioth, Orient, ii. 158 ff.) Besides Eph-
raem, Aphraates, an earlier Syrian Father (a.d. 337) appears
to have used it {Horn, i. p. 13 ed. Wright) ; and in the Doc-
trine of Addaiy an apocryphal Syriac work, written probably
not far from the middle of the third century, which purports
to give an account of the early history of Christianity at
Edessa, the people are represented as coming together " to
the prayers of the service, and to [the reading of] the Old
Testament and the New of the Diatessaron." * The Doc-
trine of Addai does not name the author of the Diatessaron
thus read ; but the facts already mentioned make the pre-
sumption strong that it was Tatian's. A scholion on Cod.
72 of the Gospels cites "Tatian's Gospel" for a remarkable
reading of Matt, xxvii. 49 found in many ancient MSS. ; and
*In Cureton's Ancient Syriac Documents {Lond. 1864) the text, published from a MS. in
the British Museum, is here corrupt, reading Ditonron, a word without meaning; comp. Pratten's
Sjriac Documents {i%ji), p. 35, note, in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xx. Cureton
coDJectnred that the true reading was Z?/a//jfar^« (see his note, p. 158), and his conjecture is
confirmed by the St. Petersburg MS. published by Dr. George Phillips, T/u Doctrine 0/ Addai,
London, 1876; see his note, p. 34 f. Cureton*s Syriac text (p. 15), as well as his translation
(p. 15), reads Ditonron, not Ditornon, as Lightfoot, Pratten, and Phillips erroneously state,
being misled by a misprint in Cureton*s note. Phillips gives the reading correctly in the note to
his Syriac text (p. 36). Moesinger, in the work described below, is also misled, spelling the word
DiathMmnn (Praef. p. iv). The difference between Ditonron and Diatessaron in the Syriac is
very di^it, affecting only a single letter.
56 CRITICAL ESSAYS
it is also cited for a peculiar reading of Luke vii. 42.* So
far the evidence is clear, consistent, and conclusive ; but on
the ground of a confusion between Tatian's Harmony and
that of Ammonius on the part of a Syrian writer of the
thirteenth century (Gregorius Abulpharagius or Bar-He-
braeus), and of the two persons by a still later writer, Ebed-
Jesu, both of which confusions can be traced to a misunder-
standing of the language of Bar-Salibi, and for other reasons
equally weak, f the fact that Tatian's work was a Harmony
of our Four Gospels has been questioned by some German
critics, and of course by Supernatural Religion. But the
whole subject has been so thoroughly discussed and its ob-
scurities so well cleared up by Bishop Lightfoot, in an article
in the Conte^nporary Review for May, 1877, ^^at the question
may be regarded as settled. % Lightfoot's view is confirmed
by the recent publication of Ephraem's Commentary on the
•See Tischendorf, N.T. Gr. ed. 8va, on Matt, xxvii. 49, and Scholz, N.T. Gr., vol. i,
p. cxlix., and p. 343, note x.
t Such as that Victor of Capua (a.d. 545) savs that it was called Diapenlt (i.e., " made out of
Ave "). But this is clearly a slip of the pen of Victor himself, or a mistake of some scribe ; for, as
Hilgenfeld {^EinUii. p. 70, note) and Lightfoot remark, Victor is simply reporting Eusebim^s
account of it, and not only does Eusebius say that Tatian called it the DiaUisaron^ but Victor
himself has just described it as " unum ex quatuorV The strange mistake, for it can be nothing
else, may possibly be accounted for by the fact that Diatessaron and Diafiente being both musical
terms (cf. Plut. Quetst. Conviv. iii. 9, § i ; De Mus. cc. 22, 23; Macrob. in Somn. Scifi.i. 6,
§§ 43> 44; ii' i» §§ 15-35; Vitruv. v. 4, §§ 7, 8; Martian. Capella, ix., §§ 950 ff ; Censorinus,
X. 6; Philo, De Opif. Afundi, c. 15, and Miiller's note, p. 214 ff)i one might naturally recall the
other, and lead to an unconscious substitution on the part of the author or of some absent-minded
copyist. Such slii>s o( the pen, or heterographies, 2a^ not uncommon. To take examples from
two books Mvhich I have ju!>l been using : ^ Zacagni, ColUctartea Mon. V.et. p. ss^i note ^, says
"Anno Christi guin/tentesimo quinquagesimo octavo" when he means ** quaJriM^eMtestmo*^ \
Charteris, CanonicUy (Edin. 1S80), p. xlv., note, no. 4, says " Eusebius" for " Papus,'* and, in
quoting Lardner (U>id. p. 42, note 1, end), substitutes ** New Testament " loT**Old Testament ".
Under no circumstances can any inference about the composition of the work be drawn from this
Diapente^ for Victor derives his information from Eubehuis, and not only do all the Greek MSS.
in the passage referred to read Diatessaron^ but this reading is confirmed by the very ancient,
probably contemi>orary, Syriac version of Eusebiu&, preserved in a MS. of the sixth century, and
by the Latin version of Rufinus, made a century and a half before Victor wrote. (See Lightfoot,
p. 1x43.) The mistake ascribed to the Syriac lexicographer Bar-Bahlul is proved to be due to an
interpolator. (Sec Lightfoot, p. 1 139, note.) The statement of Epiphanius, the most untrustworthy
and blundering of the Fathers, that " it is called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews"
{Hter. xlvi. i), if it had any foundation beyond a mere guess of the writer, may have originated
from the omission of the genealogies, which were omitted also in one form of the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews (Epiph. Har. xxx. 13, 14). The supposition that it was that Gospel con-
tradicts all our information about the two works except the circumstance just mentioned; and
that it had additions from that Gospel is a conjecture for ^^hich we have not a particle of evidence.
(See Lightfoot, p. 1141 ; Lipsius in Smith and \V ace's Diet, of Christian Biog. ii. 714.)
tTo Lightfoot's article I am much indebted. The other writers who treat of the subject most
fully are Credner, Beitrdge, u.s.w., i. 437-451, who has throv^-n more darkness upon it than
anyoody else; Daniel, Tatianus der Apologet (Halle, 1837), PP* 87-111, who has refuted
Credner's arguments; Semisch, Tatiani Diatessaron^ Vratisl. 1856; Hilgenfeld, Einleit. in d.
M.T. (1875), pp. 75-79; SupematMrai Religion^ vol. ii., pp. 148-150, 7th ed. ; and E. B.
Nicholson, Th* Gos^l according to tfu f/ebrews ihondon^ 1879), p. 16 (., and pp. 126-133, who
does not appear to nave seen Lightfoot's article, but exposes independently many of the errors
and fallacies of Supernatural Religion. See also Norton, Genuineness o/t/ie Gospeis, iii. 39a S.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 57
Diatessaron, to which I have already had occasion to refer. *
This exists only in an Armenian version of the Syriac, made,
it is supposed, in the fifth century. The Armenian text was
published in the second volume of the collected Works of
St. Ephraem in Armenian, printed at Venice in 1836 (4 vols.
8vo) ; but Aucher's Latin translation of the Commentary,
revised and edited by G. Moesinger, who compared it with
another Armenian manuscript, first appeared at Venice in
1876, and the work has hitherto been almost unnoticed by
scholars.! It should be observed that Ephraem's commen-
tary is only on select passages of the Harmony, unless the
work which has come down to us is merely an abridgment.
But there seems to be no ground for questioning the gen-
uineness of the work ascribed to Ephraem ; and little or no
ground for doubting that the Harmony on which he is com-
menting is Tatian's, in accordance with the account of
Dionysius Bar-Salibi. % It agrees with what we know of
Tatian's in omitting the genealogies and in beginning with
the first verse of the Gospel of John. Further, the character
of the text, so far as we can judge of it from a translation of
a translation, is such as to lend confirmation to the view that
it is Tatian's. It presents some very ancient various read-
ings which accord remarkably with those of Justin Martyr
and other early writers, and with the Curetonian Syriac
where it differs from the later Peshito. ||
* See Note A, no. 4.
t The yolume is entitled : Evangtlii coneordantis Exposiiio facta a Sancto Ephratm0
Dpciort Syro, In LatmutH translata a R. P. Joannt Baptista A ucker Mechitarista cujus
Vtrtwtumt emtndavii, Adttotationibus Ulustravit tt edidU Dr. Georgiut Motsingtr.
Venetiis, Libraria PP. Mechitaristarum in Monasterio S. Lazari. 1876. 8vo. pp. xii., 293.
Lipsins, art. Gospels, Apocryphal^ in Smith and Wace's Diet. 0/ Christian Bicg.., vol. ii.
(London, 18S0), p. 7x3, is not even aware that the Armenian translation has been published.
tSee Moesinger, nbisuprat Praef. p. ii. ff.
I We find, for example, the very ancient punctuation or construction which ends the sentence
in John i. 3 witliot>c5e h>^ "not even one thing," connecting 0 yeyovtv with ver. 4. (See
Moesinger's edition, p. 5.) This accords with the citation of the passage by Tatian {Or at. ad
Grme. c 19). In Matt. i. 25, we reaid " sancte {or in sanctitate) habitabat cum ea" (Moesinger,
pp. as, 25, a6); so the Curetonian Sjrriac. In Matt. viii. xo (p. 74), it reads, " Non in aliqno in
Israffl tantam fidem inveni,** with Cod. Vaticanus (B), several of the best cursives, the MSS.
a gi. k q of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, Sahidic, Coptic, and /Ethiopic versions, the
Hardean Syriac in the margin, Augustine once, and ih^ "Opus I mper/ectum^^ on Matt. In
Matt. xL 27 (Moesinger, pp. xr 7, 216), it agrees with Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and the
in Ireiueas, in the transposition. of the clauses relating to the Father and the Son. (See
58 CRITICAL ESSAYS
We may regard it then, I conceive, as an established fact
that Tatian's Diatessaron was a Harmony of our four Gospels.
So difficult and laborious a work would hardly have been un-
dertaken, except to meet a want which had been widely felt.
It implies that the four books used were recognized by those
for whom it was intended as authoritative, and as possessing
equal authority. Can we then believe that Tatiah's Harmony
represented a difEerent set of books from the " Memoirs called
Gospels " of his master Justin, which were read at the meet-
ings for public worship in churches all over the Christian
world as the authentic records of the life and teaching of
Christ, the production of Apostles and their companions }
Does not Tatian*s unquestionable use of the Gospel of John
in particular confirm the strong presumption from other facts
that this Gospel was included in the " Memoirs " used by his
master and by Christians generally twenty years before ?
This presumption receives further confirmation from other
testimonies to the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel
between the time of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.
The treatise or fragment On the Resurrection^ which Otto
with many others ascribes to Justin, if not genuine, probably
belongs to this period. In c. i we read, " The Logos of God,
who was \or became] his Son, came to us clothed in flesh,
revealing both himself and the Father, giving to us in him-
self the resurrection from the dead and the eternal life which
follows." The allusions here to John i. i, 14; xiv. 9; xi. 25,
26, seem unmistakable. So in c. 9, " He permitted them to
handle him, and showed in his hands the marks of the nails,"
we have a reference to John xx. 25, 27, as well as to Luke
xxiv. 39.
Melito, bishop of Sardis (cir. a.d. 165), in a fragment from
Note A, under no. 4.) In Matt. xix. 17, the text is given in Ephraem's commentary in dififerent
forms, but it seems to be, substantially, " Unus tantum est bonus, Pater {or Deus Pater) qui in
cac'lis" (Moesinger, pp. 169, 170, 173); similarly, Justin Martyr once {Dial. c. loi), the Naassenes
in Hippolytus {Adv. liter, v. 7, p. 103), the Marcosians in Irenxus {Jleer. \. 20. §a), and the
Clementine Homilies (xviii. 1, 3); sec, for the numerous variations of reading here, Tischendorfs
N.T. Gr. ed. Sva, in he. Notice also the reading of John vii. 8 ("-VV;« asceudo," Moesinger,
p. 167); John iii. 13, quoted >\'ithout the last clause of text, reccpt. (pp. 187, 1S9, comp. x68);
John X. 8 {ante tne, p. 200) ; Luke xxii. 44 (" et factus est sudor ejus ut guttae sanguinis,'' p. 235;
comp. Justin, Dial. c. 103).
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 59
his work on the Incarnation preserved by Anastasius Sinaita,
speaks of Christ as " giving proof to us of his deity by signs
[wrought] in the three years after his baptism, and of his
humanity in the thirty years before his baptism." * This
assignment of a duration of three years to his ministry must
have been founded on the Gospel of John, which mentions
three Passovers (ii. 13; vi. 4; xi. 55) besides the "feast of
the Jews" referred to in John v. i.
Claudius ApoUinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia {cir.
A.D. 166), in a treatise on the Paschal Festival, refers to the
apparent difference between John and the Synoptic Gospels
as to the time of the death of Jesus. ApoUinaris, relying
on the Gospel of John, held that it was on the day on which
the paschal lamb was killed, the 14th of Nisan ; his oppo-
nents, appealing to the Gospel of Matthew, maintained that
it was on the day following. Both Gospels were evidently
received as authoritative by both parties.f He also refers
in the same work to the piercing of the side of Jesus and
the effusion of water and blood, mentioned only by John
(xix. 34).t
The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul
to those of Asia and Phrygia, giving an account of their per-
secutions (a.d. 177), quotes the following as the words of the
Lord : " There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth
you shall think that he is offering a religious service to God,"
Xarpeiav -rpoat^pttv rift Oeu. The expression in the last clause
is the same which is inadequately rendered in the common
version "doeth God service" (John xvi. 2).|| The use of the
word irapdKhrro^ a little before in the Epistle, "having the
•See Anast. Sinait. Hodtg. or Via Dux^ c. 13, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. Ixxxix. col. 229, or
Mefito, Frag. vi. in Otto, C»rp. Apol. Christy vol. ix. (1872), p. 416.
iCAroMicoH PaseAaief yo\. i.,pp. 13, Mi ed. Dindorf; ApoUinaris in Routh's ^*//. M<:r<r,
ed. alt. (1846), i 160; or Otto, Cor/. Apol. Christ., ix. 486 f.
Xlbid. p. 14, cd. Dindorf; Routh, ibid. p. 161; Otto, ubi supra. For a full view of the
evidence of Melito and ApoUinaris, and of the considerations which give it weight, see Lightfoot's
artide, "The Later Sdiool of St. John," in the Contemporary Revirw for February, 1876,
zzvii. 471 €f.
BThe letter is preserved in large part by Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. v. cc. 1-4. It may be con-
sulted conveniently in Rooth, Rell. sacra, i. 29s ff-. cd. alt. For the quotation, see Epist. c. 4;
Routh, p. 300; Eoseb. v. x. § 15.
6o CRITICAL ESSAYS
Paraclete within him/* also suggests the Gospel of John;
comp. John xiv. i6, ly*
Athenagoras the Athenian («>. a.d. 176), in his Plea for
Christians addressed to M. Aurelius and Commodus, speak-
ing of "the Logos of God the Father," says that "through
him all things were made " (pc airrov ndvra eyivrro), the Father
and the Son being one ; and the Son being in the Father,
and the Father in the Son " ; language which seems evidently
founded on John i. 3 ; x. 30, 38; xiv. 10, 11 ; xvii. 21, 22.t
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch a.d. 169-181, in his work
in defence of Christianity addressed to Autolycus (a.d. 180),
says, "The Holy Scriptures teach us, and all who were
moved by the Spirit, among whom John says, * In the begin-
ning was the word [or Logos], and the Word was with God.' "
He proceeds to quote John i. 3. J
The Muratorian Canon (cir. a.d. 170), as has already«been
mentioned, ascribes the Gospel to the Apostle John, and
gives an account of the circumstances under which it was
written, fabulous doubtless in some of its details, but having
probably a basis of truth. ||
Celsus, the celebrated heathen adversary of Christianity
(a.d. 178, Keim), professedly founds his statements concern-
ing the history of Christ on "the writings of his disciples ";**
and his accounts are manifestly based on our four Gospels,tt
*Episi. c. 3; Routh, p. 29S; Euseb. v. i. § 10. In the same section we have other expres-
sions apparently borrowed from John xv. 13 and i John iii. 16. See, further, Lightfoot's article,
"The Churches of Gaul,'' in the ConUmp. Review for August, 1876, xxviii. 405 ff. An English
translation of the Fragments of Melito and Apollinaris, and of the Epistle of the Churches ol
Vienne and Lyons, will be found appended to vol. ii. of Lactantius, in vol. xxii. of the Ante-
Nicene Christian Library.
t Suppl. pro Christ, c. 10, p. 46, ed. Otto.
tAdAuioL ii. 22, pp. 1 18-120, ed. Otto.
n See on this subject Lightfoot in the ConUmp. Review for October, 1S75, ^^^cvL 835 ff.;
Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible^ p. 248 (Eng. ed.); and Westcott, ** Introd. to the Gospel of
St. John," in The Holy Bible . . . with . . . Commentary, etc, ed. by F. C. Cook, N. T., vol E.
p. XXXV. ; als<i his Canon of the N. T.^ 5th ed., p. 214 ff.
••Origen, Cels. ii. 13, 74; comp. 32, 53. He quotes these writings as possessing among
Christians unquestioned authority : "We need," sap he, "no other witness; for you fetU upon
your own swords " (ii. 74).
Tt See fully in Lardner, Testimonies 0/ Ancient Heathens y cY\. xviii., W-w^ty, vii. 210-278;
Kirchhofer, Qnellensammlung- Mur Gesch. des netUest, Canons (1844), PP- 330-349; Keim,
Celstuf M^ahres Wort (1873), pp. 323-230. Comp. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospdtt L 14s
ff. ; E. A. Abbott, art. Gospels^ in the Encye. Britannica^ 9th ed., x. 818.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 6 1
though he does not name their authors. He refers to sev-
eral circumstances peculiar to the narrative of John, as the
blood which flowed from the body of Jesus at his crucifixion,*
and the fact that Christ " after his death arose, and showed
the marks of his punishment, and how his hands had been
pierced." f He says that "some relate that one, and some
that two angels came to the sepulchre, to announce that
Jesus was risen." J Matthew and Mark speak of but one
angel, Luke and John mention two. He says that the Jews
" challenged Jesus in the temple to produce some clear proof
that he was the Son of God." || He appears also to allude to
the cry of Jesus, " I thirst," recorded only by John.** Re-
ferring to a declaration of Jesus, he satirically exclaims,
" O Light and Truth ! " designations of Christ characteristic
of John's Gospel. tt He says that Jesus "after rising from
the dead showed himself secretly .to one woman only, and
to his boon companions."JJ Here the first part of the
statement seems to refer to John's account of the appear-
ance of Christ to Mary Magdalene.
The heretical writings of this period clearly recognize the
Fourth Gospel. Notwithstanding several apparent quotations
or allusions, it was formerly maintained that the author of
the Clementine Homilies could not possibly have used this
Gospel, it being in such opposition to his opinions. But
since the discovery of the Codex Ottobonianus, containing
the missing portion of the book (first published by Dressel
in his edition of the Homilies in 1853), there has been a
change of view. That portion contains so clear a quotation
of John ix. 1-3 (Horn, xix. 22) that Hilgenfeld has handsomely
retracted his denial ;|||| and, though Scholten and Supematu-
*Origen, CtU. U. 36, also i. 66; comp. John xix. 34.
tOrigen, Celt. ii. 55, 59; John xx 35, 27.
t Origin, Celx. ▼. 52, 56; John xx 12; comp. Luke xxiv. 4, 23.
lOrigen, Cti$. i. 67; John ii. 18; comp. x. 23, 24. (Matt. xxi. 23.)
^'^Origen, CrZr. iL 37; John xix. 28.
tt Origen, Celt, iL 49; John viii. 12; ix. 5 ; xii. 46; xiv. 6.
t$Oi%en, CtU, ii.70; John xx. 14-18. Compare, however, the Addition to Mark, xri. 9.
WRimUiL in d. N.T.^ p. 43 {., note; comp. Matthew Arnold, God and th* BibU^ p. 277.
Volkmtf alao recognises the use of the Fourth Goepel here, but only as " an unapostolic novum ^
62 CRITICAL ESSAYS
ral Religion still resist the evidence, there can be little doubt
about the final verdict of impartial criticism. Besides this
passage and that about the new birth,* the Gospel of John
seems to be used twice in Horn, iii. 52, once in a free quota-
tion : " I am the gate of life ; he that entereth in through
me entereth into life, for there is no other teaching that
can save " (comp. John x. 9, 10) ; and again, " My sheep hear
my voice" (comp. John x. 27).
More important, and beyond any dispute, is the evidence
of the use of the Fourth Gospel as the work of the Apostle
John by the Gnostics of this period. Ptolemy, the disciple
of Valentinus, in his Epistle to Flora, preserved by Epipha-
nius {Hcer, xxxiii. 3), quotes John i. 3 as what " the Apostle
says " ; t and, in the exposition of the Ptolemaeo-Valentinian
system given by Irenaeus, a long passage is quoted from
Ptolemy or one of his school in which he is represented as
saying that "John, the disciple of the Lord, supposes a
certain Beginning," etc., citing and commenting on John i.
1-5, 14, 18, in support of the Valentinian doctrine of the
Ogdoad. X The Valentinians, indeed, as we are told by
Irenaeus elsewhere, used the Gospel of John most abundantly
{Hcer. iii. 11. § 7). Heracleon, another disciple of Valen-
tinus, wrote a commentary on it, large extracts from which
are preserved by Origen. || The book commonly cited as
Excerpta Tluodoti or Doctrina Orientalis, a compilation (with
criticisms) from the writings of Theodotus and other Gnostics
of the second century, ascribed to Clement of Alexandria and
{Ursprung uns. Ew., 1866, p. 62 f., 134 ^O- The question is well treated by Sanday, TJU
Gcxpeh in tJu Second Century, pp. 293 ff. It is to be observed that the incident of ** the man
blind from his birth " is introduced in the Homilies (xix. 22) as it is in the Apostolical Constitu-
tions (v. 7. § 17) with the use of the definite article, as something well-known to the readers of the
book. How does this happen, if the writer is taking it from "an unapostolic novum " f Drum-
mond and Sanday have properly called attention to this use of the article.
* Horn. xi. a'^i; see ab«»ve, pp. 29, 31.
1 1 follow the text of Dindorf in his edition of Epiphanius, vol. ii., pp. 199, 200, who read«
TO, re navra for an: Tzavra and yf^ nvtrni wJu'for ytyovev ovStv.
tiren. //ar. i. 8. §5. The old Latin version of Irenaeus, which is often more trustworthy
than the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius, ends the section referred to with the words:
£i PtolenuBus quidem ita. For the Greek, generally, see Epiphanius, Heer. xxxi. a7, in
DindorTs edition, which gives the best text.
B These are collected in Grabe's Spicilegium SS, Pairunt, etc., ii. 85-117,237, ed. alt.
(1714), and in Stieren's Irenaeus, i. 938-971.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 63
commonly printed with his works, contains many extracts
from one or more writers of the Valentinian school, in which
the Gospel of John is quoted and commented upon as the
work of the Apostle. (See particularly cc. 6-8, also 3, 9,
13, 17-19, 26, 41, 45, 61, 62, 65, 73.)
The literature of the third quarter of the second century
is fragmentary, but we have seen that it attests the use of
the Fourth Gospel in the most widely separated regions of
the Christian world, and by parties diametrically opposed in
sentiment. The fact that this Gospel was used by those to
whose opinions it was or seemed to be adverse — by the
author of the Clementine Homilies, by Quartodecimans and
their opponents, and especially by the Gnostics, who were
obliged to wrest its language so violently to accommodate it
to their systems — shows that to have won such a reception at
that time it must have come down from an earlier period
with commanding authority. Its use in Tatian's Diatessaron
also makes this evident. It must have belonged to those
" Memoirs " to which Justin appealed fifteen or twenty years
before, and which were recognized by the Christians gen-
erally of his day as the authentic sources of information
respecting the life and teaching of Christ. The particular
evidence we have been examining, limited as it is by the
scantiness of the literature, strengthens the general conclu-
sion before drawn from the universal reception of our four
Gospels in the time of Irenaeus, and from the direct indica-
tions of the use of the Fourth Gospel by Justin. The evi-
dence that this Gospel was one of his " Memoirs " is thus
cumulative, and, unless it is countervailed by some very
strong objections, must be regarded as decisive. Let us
then consider the main objections which have been urged
against this conclusion.
The first is that, according to Supernatural Religion, **The
description which Justin gives of the manner of the teaching
of Jesus excludes the idea that he knew the Fourth Gospel.
' Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him : for
he was no Sophist, but his word was the power of God.'
64 CRITICAL ESSAYS
No one could for a moment assert that this applies to the
long and artificial discourses of the Fourth Gospel." *
Here we may observe, in the first place, that Justin's Greek
is not quite accurately translated, f The word rendered
" sentences " is without the article ; and Prof. Drummond
translates the clause more correctly, ** Brief and concise say-
ings have proceeded from him," remarking that "Justin is
describing not the universal, but only the prevailing and
prominent character of his teaching." J And it is not a
description of the teaching in the Fourth Gospel in particu-
lar, but a general statement, not inconsistent with the fact
that the character of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel
is in some respects peculiar. But, as to " brief and concise
sayings" of Jesus, Professor Drummond, in glancing over
the first thirteen chapters of John, finds no less than fifty-
three to which this description would apply. He observes
that "the book contains in reality very little connected
argumentation ; and even the longest discourses consist
rather of successive pearls of thought strung on a thread
of association than of consecutive discussion and proof." ||
But it may be greatly doubted whether Justin means here
by ppaxeig Uyoi^ as Taylcr supposes, simply " short, aphoristic
maxims." The reference to the Sophists, that is, rhetori-
cians, leads one rather to suppose that Justin is contrasting
the A<5>o/, "discourses," of Christ in general with the long,
artificial, argumentative, and rhetorical u^oi of the Sophists
among his earlier or later contemporaries, such as Dion
Chrysostomus, Herodes Atticus, Polemo and Aristides,
whom Philostratus describes in his biographies. As for
brevity, the discourses in the Fourth Gospel are generally
short : the longest continuous discourse there recorded
•Suf. Rtl.t ii. 3x4; similarly J. J. Tayler, An Attempt to ascertain the Character 0/ the
Fourth Gospel (1867), p. 64; Davidson, Introd. to the Study 0/ the .V.T. (1868), ii. 386, and
many others.
^Apol. i. 14: Ppax^'ic S^ Kal ai'VTOfWL nap* aifTOv Tioyot yeydvaaiv. It may be
thought, perhaps, that oi has dropped out after avvTOfiot, which might easily have happened.
But, even if the article had been used, the argiunent would be worthless. Such general proposi-
tions are seldom to be taxen without qualification.
t Theol. Review, July, 1877, xiv. 330.
llbid. pp. 330, 331.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 65
would hardly occupy five minutes in the reading. The
Sermon on the Mount as given by Matthew is much longer
than any unbroken discourse in John. But what charac-
terizes the teaching of Christ in the Gospels, as Justin inti-
mates, is the divine authority and spiritual power with which
he speaks ; and this is not less striking in the Fourth Gospel
than in the Synoptists. (Comp. Matt. vii. 29 ; Luke iv. 32 ;
John vii. 26, 46.)
A more plausible objection is this. If Justin knew and
used the Fourth Gospel at all, why has he not used it more }
Why has he never appealed to it in proof of his doctrine of
the Logos and of the pre-existence of Christ ? He has ex-
pressly quoted but one saying of Christ recorded in it, and
one of John the Baptist, and has referred to but one incident
peculiar to it, unless we adopt the view of Professor Drum-
mond respecting his reference to John xix. 13. (See above,
p. 52.) His account of Christ's life and teaching cor-
responds substantially with that given in the Synoptic Gos-
pels, which he follows (so it is affirmed) where they differ,
or seem to differ, from John. Albrecht Thoma, in an article
in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift, comes to the conclusion, after a
minute examination of the subject, that Justin "knows and
uses almost every chapter of the Logos-Gospel, and in part
very fully." But such considerations as I have mentioned
convince him, notwithstanding, that he did not regard it as
apostolic, or historically authentic. He finds Justin's rela-
tion to the Apostle Paul very similar. Justin shows himself
well acquainted with Paul's writings, he often follows him in
his citations from the Old Testament where they differ from
the Septuagint, he borrows largely his thoughts and illustra-
tions and language, but never quotes him expressly and by
name ; and so Mr. Thoma thinks he cannot have regarded
him as an Apostle.*
This argument forgets the nature of Justin's writings.
Were he addressing a Christian community in defence of his
* See the article, " Jusdns literarisches Verhftltniss zu Paulus und zum Johannes-Evan>
** m HOgenfeld's Zeiisckri/t /^ wuunsck, Tke<flogit^ 1875, xviii. 383 ff., 490 ff- The
IB Uu test is from p^ 5S3«
66 CRITICAL ESSAYS
doctrine of the pre-existence and subordinate deity of Christ
in opposition to the Ebionites, these objections would be
valid. But he was writing for unbelievers. In his Apolo-
gies addressed to the Emperor and Senate and people of
Rome, he cannot quote the Christian writings in direct proof
of the truth of Christian doctrines, and makes no attempt to
do so. In giving the account which he does of the teaching
of Christ, he draws mainly from the Sermon on the Mount,
and in his sketch of the Gospel history follows mainly the
guidance of Matthew, though also using Luke, and in two
or three instances Mark. That is exactly what was to be
expected. Justin's chief argument is derived from the fulfil-
ment of Old Testament prophecies, and in this he natu-
rally follows the Gospel of Matthew, which is distinguished
from the others by its reference to them. Where Matthew's
citations differ from the Alexandrine version of the Old
Testament, Justin often appears to borrow from Matthew
rather than from the Septuagint.* The discourses of Christ
as they are given in the Synoptic Gospels were obviously
much better fitted for his purpose of presenting to heathens
a general view of Christ's teaching than those in the Gospel
of John. Similar remarks apply to the Dialogue with
Trypho the Jew. Here Dr. Davidson thinks it strange that
Justin should not have quoted the prologue of the Fourth
Gospel, and such a passage as "Before Abraham was, I am,"
in proof of Christ's divinity and pre-existence. f But the
Jew with whom Justin was arguing would not have accepted
an assertion of John or a declaration of Christ as a proof of
its truth. So in the case of Paul's writings. Paul was not
so popular among the Jews that his name would recommend
the arguments or illustrations which Justin borrows from
him ; still less could Justin quote his Epistles in proof of
doctrine in a discussion with a Jew, or in a defence of Chris-
tianity addressed to heathens.
*See Semisch, DU apost. DeptktoVkrdigktiUn u.s.w., pp. x 10-120; examples are also given
by Norton, Genuitutuxs^ etc., vol. i. Addit. Notes, pp. ccxx., ccxxii., cccxxxiL f.
t Davidson's Intrcd. to the Study of the N. T. (1868), ii. 385. Compare Volkmar, Utber
Justin den M^rtyrtr u.s.w. (Zlirich, 1853), p. ao f. ; Ur$prMng $uu. Evang: (1866), p. 107 f.
Thoma, udint/ra, p. 556.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 67
The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by an
indisputable fact. Justin certainly believed that the Apostle
John was the author of the Apocalypse ; Supernatural Relig-
ion (i. 295) thinks that this was the only book of the New
Testament which he regarded as "inspired"; Thoma (p. 563,
note i) even supposes that it was read in the churches in
Justin's time together with the ** Memoirs" and the Prophets
of the Old Testament. How, then, does it happen that he
has not a single quotation from this book, which calls Christ
"the Word [Logos] of God " (Rev. xix. 13), " the beginning
of the creation of God " (iii. 14), " the first and the last and
the living one" (i. 17, comp. ii. 8), "the searcher of the reins
and hearts " (ii. 23), and, apparently (though according to
Alford and Westcott not really), "the Alpha and the Omega,
the beginning and the end " (xxii. 13).^ In speaking of the
different opinions among Christians about the resurrection,
Justin once refers to the book as agreeing with the prophets
in predicting the Millennium, and mentions the name of the
author {Dial, c. 81 ; the passage will be cited below) ; but, as
I have said, he nowhere quotes this work, which he regarded
as inspired, apostolic, prophetic, though it contains so much
which might seem to favor his view of the person of Christ.
Were it not for that almost accidental reference to it, it
might be plausibly argued that he was ignorant of its exist-
ence. In one place in the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 18),
Justin half apologizes for subjoining "some brief sayings"
of the Saviour to the words of the Prophets, on the ground
that Trypho had acknowledged that he had read the precepts
of Christ "in the so-called Gospel" {Dial c. 10). But he
does not introduce them there as arguments.
It should be observed, further, that the course pursued by
Justin in abstaining from quoting the Gospels in proof of
doctrines, and in not mentioning the Evangelists by name,
in writings addressed to unbelievers, is simply that which
was followed, with slight exceptions, by a long line of Chris-
tian Apologists from his time down to that of Eusebius.*
•See Norton, Gtn, of tlu GospeU, I ai8 ff.; Westcott, Canon of the N.T., p. ii6 ff . ;
E. S. Ffbolkes, art. FaiJurs, in Smith and Wace*s Diet, of Christian Biog., ii. 45^ ^*
68 CRITICAL ESSAYS
It may still be said that this applies only to quotations
made in proof of doctrines. It may be asked, and there is
some force in the question, Why has not Justin used John
as he has used the Synoptic Gospels, as an authority for his-
torical facts, for facts which he supposed to be predicted in
the Old Testament ? To take one example which has been
urged : Justin has quoted from the Old Testament, in pre-
cisely the same form as John (differing from the established
text of the Septuagint), the words, ** They shall look on me
whom they pierced '* : * but instead of referring to the inci-
dent which led John to quote it, — the thrusting of a spear
into our Saviour's side by a Roman soldier, — he seems to
apply it to the crucifixion generally. How could he do this,
if he accepted the Gospel of John ? t
This case presents little difficulty. The verbs in the
quotation, it will be observed, are in the plural. If Justin
regarded the prophecy as including the act of the Roman
soldier, he could not have restricted it to that : he must
have regarded the language of the Old Testament as refer-
ring also to the piercing of the hands and the feet of Jesus
on the part of the soldiers who nailed him to the cross. It
is not strange^ therefore, that he should quote the passage
without referring to the particular act mentioned by John.
He applies the prophecy, moreover, to the Jews, who caused
the death of Jesus, and not to the Roman soldiers, who were
the immediate agents in the crucifixion. J
But there is a stronger case than this. Justin, who speaks
of Christ as **the passover'* or paschal lamb, symbolizing
the deliverance of Christian believers from death, **as the
blood of the passover saved those who were in Egypt" {Dial,
c. Ill, comp. 40), has not noticed the fact recorded by John
alone, that the legs of Christ were not broken by the Roman
soldiers at the crucifixion. This the Evangelist regards as
a fulfilment of the scripture, ** A bone of him shall not be
•Zech. xii. xo; John xix. 37; Justin, Apol. i. 52. See above, p. 48.
t Thoma, pp. 542 f., 556; comp. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justins des 3IU^fyrers
(1878), p. 350-
X AfoL \. 52 ; Ditil. cc. 14, 32, 64, 118; comp. DUil. cc. 85, 93, etc. ; Acts ii. 23 ; x. 39.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 69
broken " ; and this quotation is commonly referred to the
direction respecting the paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 46; Num.
ix. 12). How, it may be asked, could Justin, with his fond-
ness for types, have neglected such a fulfilment as this, when
the Evangelist had already pointed it out ? This argument
is plausible, and has some weight. Let us consider it.
In the first place, I must venture to doubt whether there
is any reference to the paschal lamb in John xix. 36. The
Evangelist says nothing whatever to indicate such a refer-
ence, though some explanation would seem to be needed of
the transformation of a precept into a prediction. The lan-
guage of Ps. xxxiv. 20 (Sept. xxxiii. 21) corresponds more
closely with the citation ; and, considering the free way in
which passages of the Old Testament are applied in the
New, the fact that in the connection in which the words
stand in the Psalm protection of life is referred to does not
seem a very serious objection to the supposition that the
Evangelist had this passage in mind. He may well have
regarded the part of the Psalm which he quotes as fulfilled
in the case of "Jesus Christ the righteous " in the incident
which he records, and the preceding verse as fulfilled in the
resurrection. And some eminent scholars take this view
of his meaning ; so, ^.^., Grotius, Wetstein, Bishop Kidder,
Hammond, Whitby, Briickner, Baumlein, Weiss ; * others, as
Lenfant and Le Clerc, leave the matter doubtful ; and some,
as Vitringa and Bengel, suppose the Et^angelist to have had
both passages in mind. But, waiving this question, I would
say, once for all, that very little importance is to be attached
to this sort of a priori reasoning. We may be surprised that
Justin should not have been led by the Fourth Gospel to
find here a fulfilment of prophecy of some sort, and to use
it in his argument ; but a hundred cases equally surprising
might be cited of the neglect of a writer to use an argument
or to recognize a fact which we should have confidently ex-
pected that he would use or recognize. To take the first
that lies at hand. I have before me the work of Dr. Sanday,
*BihL Tk0«l. des N.T., je Aufl. (1880), p. 638; comp. his Der Jokanneische Lehrbegriff
(1862), p. 114, note. SoR. H. Hutton, Essays^ Theol. and Literary ^ 2d ed. (1880), i. 195.
70 CRITICAL ESSAYS
The Gospels in the Second Century, a learned, elaborate, and
valuable treatise in reply to Supernatural Religion. He ad-
duces from all sources the evidence of the use of the Gospels,
by writers who flourished in the period from Clement of
Rome to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, including
those whose references to the Gospel are very slight and
doubtful, or of whom mere fragments remain. Appended
to the work is a chronological and analytical table of these
authors. But, on looking it over, we find no mention of
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch a.d. 169-181 ; and Dr. Sanday
has nowhere presented the testimony of this writer, though
we have from him an elaborate *' Apology" or defence of
Christianity in three books, in which he quotes several pas-
sages from the Gospel of Matthew with the introduction,
"The evangelic voice teaches" so and so, or "the Gospel
says," * and though, as we have seen, he quotes the Gospel
of John (ch. i. i, 3), naming the Evangelist, and describing
him as one moved by the Spirit of God (see above, p. 58).
He is in fact the earliest writer who does thus expressly
quote the Fourth Gospel as the work of John. Now sup-
pose Dr. Sanday was a Father of the third or fourth century
who had composed a treatise with the purpose of collecting
the evidences of the use of the Gospels by early Christian
writers. What would the author of Supernatural Religion
say to the facts in this case } Would he not argue that
Sandaeus could not possibly have been acquainted with this
work of Theophilus, and that the pretended "Apology " was
probably spurious ? And, if he found in Sandceus (p. 303)
a single apparent allusion to that writer, would he not main-
tain that this must be an interpolation ? — Or to take another
example. Sanda^us is examining the question about Justin
Martyr's use of the Gospels, and observes that "he says
emphatically that all the children {-avruq aT?.wf roiV Toi^a^
in Bethlehem were slain, without mentioning the limitation
of age given in St. Matthew" (p. 106; comp. Justin, Dial.
c. ^%). Now in our present texts of Justin there is another
* Ad Auiol. lib. iii. cc. 13, 14, ed. Otto; comp. Matt. v. 28, 44, 46; vi. 3.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 71
reference to the slaughter of the innocents, in which Herod
is represented as " destroying all the children born in Beth-
lehem at that timer * But here Supernatural Religion might
argue, It is certain that this qualifying phrase could not have
been in the copy used by Sandaeus, who takes no notice of
the passage, though his aim is to meet the objections to the
genuineness of our Gospels. Is it not clear that the words
were interpolated by some one who wished to bring Justin
into harmony with Matthew? Would Justin be so incon-
sistent with himself as that addition would make him ?
A multitude of questions may be asked, to which no par-
ticular answer can be given, in reference to the use which
Justin and writers in all ages have made of our Gospels.
We cannot say why he has quoted this saying of Jesus and
not that, or referred to this incident in the history and not
that ; why, for example, in his account of Christ's teaching
in his First Apology, he makes no allusion to any of the
parables which form so remarkable a feature of it, and quotes
from them in but one place in his Dialogue with Trypho
(Dial, c. 125). We can only say that he had to stop some-
where;! that he has used the Gospels much more freely
than any other of the many Christian Apologists whose
writings have come down to us from his day to that of
Lactantius and Eusebius ; that his selection of the sayings
of Christ seems on the whole judicious and natural, though
many pearls of great price are missing ; that the historical
incidents by which he supports his special argument from
the fulfilment of prophecy are for the most part what might
be expected ; and that it was natural that in general he
should follow the Synoptic Gospels rather than that of
John.J But one needs only to try experiments on partic-
ular works by almost any writer to find that great caution
is required in drawing inferences from what he has not done.
*
*Dial. c 103 : avOJnnoq TrdvraQ rove €V 'BrfiT^kfi e k£ iv ov r ov Katpov
tCotnp. A^, i. SI* "Here we conclude, though we have many other prophecies to
pfodoce."
tSee on this p<Mnt Meyer, Komm, USer d. Ev. Joh.y 5« Aufl. (1869), p. 8 f., note (Eng.
trans^ p. 8 £., note 3); comp. Weizsftcker, Untersuchungen ii^er d. evang. GtKhiekU^ p. 329.
72 CRITICAL ESSAYS
As to the case before us, Justin may not have thought of
the incident peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, or he may have
considered, and very reasonably too, that an argument for
the typical character of the paschal lamb founded on the
direction given in the Pentateuch about the bones, or an
argument assuming the Messianic reference of the passage
in the Psalms, was not well adapted to convince unbelievers.
Perhaps he had urged this argument in the actual dialogue
with Trypho, and had encountered objections to its validity
which he did not find it easy to answer. This may seem
more probable than the supposition of forgetfulness. But
will you say that such a failure of memory as has been sug-
gested is incredible } Let us compare a case. One of the
most distinguished scholars of this country, in an article
published in the American Biblical Repository, remarks, in
the course of an elaborate argument : —
The particulars inserted or omitted by different Evangelists vary ex-
ceedingly from each other, some inserting what others omit, and some
narrating at length what others briefly touch. E,g,, compare the history
of the temptation by Mark, and even by Matthew and Luke ; and where
is the history of the transfiguration to be found, except in Matthew?*
Could anything be a priori more incredible than that an
eminent Biblical scholar, who when this was written had held
the office oi Professor of Sacred Literature in the Andover
Theological Seminary for nearly thirty years, should have
forgotten that both Mark and Luke have given full accounts
of the transfiguration, the latter especially mentioning a num-
ber of important particulars not found in Matthew .^f If
Professor Stuart was occasionally guilty of oversights, — as
who is not ? — he certainly had a clearer head and a better
memory than Justin Martyr, who in quoting and referring to
the Old Testament makes not a few extraordinary mistakes. J
I admit that some weight should 'be allowed to the argu-
** American Biblical Repository^ October, 183S, xii. 341.
t Compare Mark ix. 2-8 and Luke ix. 28-36 with Matt. xvii. 1-8.
tSee the references already given, p. 49, note*; also Somt Account of the IVritings
and Opinions 0/ Justin Martyr^ by John [Kaye], Bishop of Lincoln, 3d cd. (1853), pp. 139!
1 48; comp. p. 129 f.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 73
ment we have been examining, so far as reference to the
history in the Gospel of John is concerned ; but it does not
seem to me that much importance should be attached to it.
The tradition in the Synoptic Gospels represents without
doubt the substance of the apostolic preaching; it was
earlier committed to writing than that contained in the
Fourth Gospel ; the incidents of the threefold narrative were
more familiar ; and the discourses, especially, as has already
been remarked, were far better fitted for illustrating the
general character of Christ's teaching than those of the
Fourth Gospel. It would have been very strange, there-
fore, if in such works as those of Justin the Synoptic Gos-
pels had not been mainly used.
Engelhardt, the most recent writer on Justin, is impressed
by the facts which Thoma presents respecting Justin's rela-
tion to John, but comes to a different conclusion. He thinks
Justin could never have made the use of John's Gospel which
he has done, if he had not regarded it as genuine. It pur-
ports to be a work of the beloved disciple. The conjecture
that by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" Andrew was in-
tended (Liitzelberger), or Nathanael (Spaeth), or a person-
ified ideal conception (Scholten), was reserved for the
sagacity of critics of the nineteenth century : there is no
trace that in Christian antiquity this title ever suggested
any one but John. The Gospel must have been received as
his work, or rejected as fictitious. Engelhardt believes that
Justin received it, and included it in his ** Memoirs " ; but he
conjectures that with it there was commonly read in the
churches and used by Justin a Harmony of the first three
Gospels, or at least of Matthew and Luke, while the Fourth
Gospel, not yet incorporated into the Harmony, stood in the
background.* I do not feel the need of this hypothesis ;
but it may deserve consideration.
It is objected further that Justin's statements repeatedly
contradict the Fourth Gospel, and that he cannot therefore
have regarded it as apostolic or authentic. For example,
he follows the Synoptic Gospels, so Hilgenfeld and David-
*Sce Engdhardt, Das ChrUtenthum Justin* des MUrtyrtrs^ pp. 345-352.
74 CRITICAL ESSAYS
son and Supernatural Religion affirm, in placing, in opposi-
tion to John, the death of Christ on the isth of Nisan, the
day after the paschal lamb was killed.
The argument that Justin cannot have accepted the Gospel
of John because he has followed the Synoptists in respect to
the day of Christ's death hardly needs an answer. If the
discrepancy referred to, whether real or not, did not prevent
the whole Christian world from accepting John and the
Synoptic Gospels alike in the last quarter of the second
century, it need not have hindered Justin from doing so at
an earlier date. But it is far from certain that Hilgenfeld
and Davidson have correctly interpreted the language of
Justin : " It is written that you seized him on the day of the
passover, and in like manner crucified him at \or during]
the passover (cv rq irdaxa).^^* Meyer understands this as plac-
ing the death of Jesus on the day of the passover ; f Otto
in an elaborate note on the passage in his /Aird edition of
Justin's Works maintains the same view ; J Thoma regards
the language as ambiguous. || I will not undertake to pro-
nounce an opinion upon so difficult a question, as the objec-
tion is futile on any supposition.
Again, Supernatural Religion asserts that " Justin contra-
dicts the Fourth Gospel, in limiting the work of Jesus to one
year." (S. R. ii. 313.) Dr. Davidson makes the same state-
ment ; ** but neither he nor S. R. adduces any proof of it.
I know of no passage in Justin which affirms or implies this
limitation. But, if such a passage should be found, the argu-
ment against Justin's reception of the Fourth Gospel would
*Dial. cm. See Hilgenfeld, Dfr Puschastreit dcr alten Kircht (i860), pp. 205-209;
Davidson, Introd. to the Study of tJtt N. T. (1868), ii. 384; Sup. Rfl., ii. 313 ; comp. Wieseler,
Beitrdffe (1869), p. 240. — Note here the use of yiypaTTdi.
^ /Comf/UHt. ilb. d. Ev. des Joh., 5c Aufl. p. 24 f. (Eng. trans, i. 24 f) Steitz, who formerly
aj^eed with Hilgenfeld, afterwards adopted the view of Meyer; see the art. Pascha in Herzog's
Real-Encyk. /. Prot. u. Kirche, xi. 151, note *.
Xlvstini . . . Martyr is Opera, torn. i. pars ii., ed. tert. (1877), p. 395 f. Otto cites Z>iVt/.
c. 99, where the agony in Gethsemane is referred to as taking place ** on the day on which Jesus
was to be crucified," as showing that Justin followed the Jewish reckoning of the day from
sunset to sunset. Davidson takes no notice of this. H Meyer and Otto are right, wc have here
a strong argument for Justin's use of the Fourth Gospel.
II Ubi supra, p S"?? f.
— Ititrod. to the Study of the .V. T . ii. ^^7.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 75
be worthless. The opinion that Christ's ministry lasted but
one year, or little more, was held by many in the early Church
who received the Gospel of John without question. It was
maintained by the Basilidians, the Valentinians, and the
author of the Clementine Homilies, by Clement of Alexan-
dria, Tertullian, Origen, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Cyprian,
Archelaus, Lactantius, Ephraem Syrus apparently, Philas-
trius, Gaudentius, Q. Julius Hilarianus, Augustine apparently,
Evagrius the presbyter, and others among the Fathers, and
has been held by modern scholars, as Bentley, Mann, Priestley
(Harmony), Lant Carpenter (Harmony), and Henry Browne
(Ordo S(Bclorum)* The Fathers were much influenced by
their interpretation of Isa. Ixi. 2, — **to preach the acceptable
year of the Lord," — quoted in Luke iv. 19. It is true that
John vi. 4 is against this view ; but its defenders find means,
satisfactory to themselves, of getting over the difficulty.
Other objections urged by Dr. Davidson and Supernatural
Religion seem to me too weak to need an answer. I will,
however, notice one which is brought forward with great
confidence by Thoma, who says "Justin directly contradicts
the Fourth Gospel" (p. 556), and after him by F. C. J. van
Goens, who introduces it with the words enfin et surtout.\
•The Basilidians, see Qera. Alex. Strom, i. 21, p. 408. — Valentinians, see Iren. Har. i. 3.
(ad. 5), §3 ; ii. 20. (aL 36), § i ; 22. (al. 38-40), §§ 1-6. — Clem. Horn. xvii. 19. — Clem. Alex. Strom.
L 21, p. 407; vi. II, p. 783, 1. 40; comp. V. 6, p. 668; vii. 17, p. 898. — Tertull. Adv. Jud. c 8;
Marc. \. 15 (but here are different readings). — Origen, De Princip. iv. 5, 0pp. i. 160; In Levii.
Hem, ix. c 5, Opp. ii. 239; In Luc. Horn, xxxii., Opp. iii. 970; contra, In Matt. Comm. Ser.,
c. 40, Opp. iii. 859, "fere ires annos*'; comp. Cels. ii. 12, Opp. i. 397, ovAe rpia Ittj. — Jul.
Africani Chron. frag. 1. ap. Routh, RelL Sacrie^ ii. 301 f., ed. alt.— Pseudo-Cyprian, De PaschdB
Com/, {a.d. 243), c. 22.— Archelai et Manetis Disp.,c. 34. — Lactant. Inst. iv. 10. (De Morte
Per sec. c 2.) — Ephraem, Serm. xiii. in Nat. Dom.^ Opp. Syr. ii. 432. — Philastr. Hter. 106. —
Gaodent. Serm.m.^ Migne, Patrol, Lat. xx, S6$. — Hilarianus, Z>r Mundi Dur. (a.d. 397)
c. 16; De Die Pascfue^ c. 15; Mignc, xiii. 1104, 1114, or Gallandi, Bibl. Pair. viii. 23S, 748. —
Augustine, De Civ. Dei^ xviii. 54, Opp. vii. 866; Ad Hesych. Epist. i«>9 (al. 80), §20, Opp.
il 1122; contra, De Doct. Christ, ii. 42 (al. 28), Opp. iii. 66. — Evagrius presbyter (f/r. a.d. 423),
AUerc. inter Theoph. Christ, et Sim. Jud.^ Migne xx. 1176, or Gallandi, ix. 254.— So also the
author of the treatise De Promissis et Preedictionibus Z?// (published with the works of Prosper
Aquitanus), pan i. c. 7 ; pars v. c. a ; Migne, H. 739 c, 855 b. — Browne, Ordo Seeclorum (Cor-
rections and Additions), also cites Cyril of Alexandria, In Isa. xxxii. 10, Opp. ii. 44^ d e, but
this rests on a false inference; see, contra^ Cyril, In Isa. xxix. i, Opp. ii. 408 b. Besides the
works of Nicholas Mann, De veris Annis Jesu Christi natali et emortuttli, Lond. 1752, p. 158
ff., Greswell, Dissertations, etc., i. 438 ff., 2d ed. (1837), and Henry Browne, Ordo Satclorum,
Loud. 1844, p. 80 ff.,one may consult especially F. X. Patritius (i.e. V^\Tiz\\ De Evangeliit
(Friborg. Brisgov. 1853), lib. iii., diss, xix., p. 171 ff.
\Remt* de thiplog^ et de philosophie, Lausanne, 1878, xi. 92 f.
J 6 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Justin speaks of Christ as "keeping silence and refusing
any longer to make any answer to any one before Pilate, as
has been declared in the Memoirs by the Apostles " (Dial,
c. 102). M. van Goens remarks, "No one who had ever
read the Fourth Gospel could speak in this way." What
does M. van Goens think of Tertullian, who says,* "Velut
agnus coram tondente se sine voce, sic non aperuit as suum.
Hie enim Pilato interrogante nihil locutus est'' f If Justin
had even said that Christ made no answer when Pilate ques-
tioned him, this would be sufficiently explained by John
xix. 9, to which Tertullian perhaps refers. But the expres-
sions "no longer** and '^before Pilate" lead rather to the
supposition that Justin refers to Matt, xxvii. 11-14 and
Mark xv. 2-5 (ovKtri ov6ev areKpien, " hc no longer made any
answer"), which certainly there is nothing in John to con-
tradict.
Finally, the author of Supernatural Religion urges, gener-
ally, that in citing the Old Testament Justin, according to
Semisch's count, refers to the author by name or by book
one hundred and ninety-seven times, and omits to do this
only one hundred and seventeen times. On the other hand,
in referring to the words of Christ or the facts of Christian
history for which he relied on the " Memoirs," he never cites
the book (5. R, regards the " Memoirs " as one book) by the
name of the author, except in a single instance, where he
refers to "Peter's Memoirs" {Dial c. 106). f "The infer-
ence," he says, " must not only be that he attached small
importance to the Memoirs, but was actually ignorant of the
author's name " (5. R. i. 297). That Justin attached small
importance to the " Memoirs by the Apostles " on which he
professedly relied for the teaching and life of Christ, and
this, as S, R. contends, to the exclusion of oral tradition
(S. R. i. 298), is an " inference " and a proposition which
would surprise us in almost any other writer. The infer-
ence, moreover, that Justin "was actually ignorant of the
author's name," when in one instance, according to 5. R.,
*Adv. Jud. c. 13, Opp. ii. 737* ed. Oehler.
tSee above, p. 22 L
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 77
"he indicates Peter" as the author (5. R. i. 285), and when,
as 5. R, maintains, "the Gospel according to Peter," or "the
Gospel according to the Hebrews " (which he represents as
substantially the same work), was in all probability the source
from which the numerous quotations in his works differing
from our Gospels are taken,* is another specimen of singular
logic. So much for generalities. But a particular objection
to the conclusion that the Gospel of John was one of Justin's
"Memoirs" is founded on the fact that he has never quoted
or referred to it under the name of the author, though he has
named the Apostle John as the author of the Apocalypse.
(5. R. i. 298.) Great stress is laid on this contrast by many
writers. ~
Let us see to what these objections amount. In the first
place, the way in which Justin has mentioned John as the
author of the Apocalypse is in itself enough to explain why
he should not have named him in citing the "Memoirs."
In his Dialogue with Trypho, after having quoted prophecies
of the Old Testament in proof of his doctrine of the Millen-
nium, — a doctrine in which he confesses some Christians
did not agree with him, — he wishes to state that his belief
is supported by a Christian writing which he regards as in-
spired and prophetic. He accordingly refers to the work
as follows : " And afterwards also a certain man among us,
whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a
revelation made by him prophesied that the believers in our
Christ should spend a thousand years in Jerusalem," etc.
{Dial. c. 81.) The Apostle John was certainly as well known
outside of the Christian body as any other of the Evangelists ;
but we see that he is here introduced to Trypho as a stranger.
Still more would he and the other Evangelists be strangers
to the Roman Emperor and Senate, to whom the Apologies
were addressed. That Justin under such circumstances
should quote the Evangelists by name, assigning this saying
or incident to " the Gospel according to Matthew," that to
"Luke," and the other to "the Gospel according to John,"
RtUgion^ i. jai ; comp. pp. 313, 333, 332, 398, 416, 418-437; ii. 311, 7th ed.
jS CRITICAL ESSAYS
as if he were addressing a Christian community familiar with
the books, would have been preposterous. Justin has de-
scribed the books in his First Apology as Memoirs of Christ,
resting on the authority of the Apostles, and received by
the Christians of his time as authentic records. That was
all that his purpose required : the names of four unknown
persons would have added no weight to his citations. In
the Dialogue, he is even more specific in his description of
the "Memoirs'* than in the Apology. But to suppose that
he would quote them as he quotes the books of the Old Tes-
tament with which Trypho was familiar is to ignore all the
proprieties and congruities of the case.
This view is confirmed and the whole argument of Super-
natural Religion is nullified by the fact that the general
practice of Christian Apologists down to the time of Euse-
bius corresponds with that of Justin, as we have before had
occasion to remark. (See above, p. 6j.) It may be added
that, while in writings addressed to Christian readers by the
earlier Fathers the Old Testament is often, or usually, cited
with reference to the author or book, the cases are com-
paratively very rare in which the Evangelists are named.
For example, Clement of Alexandria, according to Semisch,
quotes the Old Testament writers or books far oftener than
otherwise by name, while in his very numerous citations
from the Gospels he names John but three times, Matthew
twice, Luke twice, and Mark once ; in the countless cita-
tions of the Gospels in the Apostolical Constitutions, the
Evangelists are never named ; and so in the numerous
quotations of the Gospels in Cyprian's writings, with the
exception of a single treatise (the Tcstimonia or Ad Quiri-
num), the names of the Evangelists are never mentioned.
Hut it cannot be necessary to expose further the utter futil-
ity of this objection, which has so often been inconsiderately
urged.*
In this view of the objections to the supposition that
Justin used the Gospel of John and included it in his
•Sec Semisch, />/> apostol. DenkwMrdigkeiUny u. s. w., p. 84 £E. ; and compare Norton,
Gemtuutuss, etc, i. 205 ff., 2d ed.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 79
"Memoirs," I have either cited them in the precise lan-
guage of their authors, or have endeavored to state them
in their most plausible form. When fairly examined, only
one of them appears, to have weight, and that not much. I
refer to the objection that, if Justin used the Fourth Gospel
at all, we should expect him to have used it more. It seems
to me, therefore, that there is nothing of importance to
countervail the very strong presumption from different lines
of evidence that the "Memoirs" of Justin Martyr, "com-
posed by Apostles and their companions," were our four
Gospels.
A word should perhaps be added in reference to the view
of Dr. E. A. Abbott, in the valuable article Gospels con-
tributed to the new edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
He holds that Justin's " Memoirs " included the first three
Gospels, and these only. These alone were received by the
Christian community of his time as the authentic records of
the life and teaching of Christ. If so, how can we explain
the fact that a pretended Gospel so different in character
from these, and so inconsistent with them as it is supposed
to be, should have found universal acceptance in the next
generation on the part of Christians of the most opposite
opinions, without trace of controversy, with the slight excep-
tion of the Alogi previously mentioned } *
I have not attempted in the present paper a thorough dis-
cussion of Justin Martyr's quotations, but only to illustrate
by some decisive examples the false assumptions on which
the reasoning of Supernatural Religion is founded. In a full
treatment of the subject, it would be necessary to consider
the question of Justin's use of apocryphal Gospels, and in
particular the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" and the
"Gospel according to Peter," which figure so prominently in
what calls itself "criticism" (die Kritik) as the pretended
source of Justin's quotations. This subject has already been
*See above, p. 20. The work of Hippolytus, of which we know only the title found on
the cathedra of his statue at Rome, " On \or ** In defence of ** {virkp) ] the Gospel accorduig
to John and the Apocalypse," may have been written in answer to their objections. See
BoBmn*» /fi/^Xius, ad ed. (1854)* >• 460. On the Alogi see also Weizs&cker, Uniersuchmgtn
UifT d. ewmmg, GMckiekUt p. »6 i, note.
8o CRITICAL ESSAYS
referred to ; * but it is impossible to treat it here in detail.
In respect to " the Qpspel according to the Hebrews " I will
give in a Note some quotations from the article Gospels^
Apocryphaly by Professor R. A. Lipsius, of Jena, in the
second volume of Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian
Biography, published in the present year, with extracts from
other recent writers, which will sufficiently show how ground-
less is the supposition that Justin's quotations were mainly
derived from this Gospel, f Lipsius certainly will not be
suspected of any " apologetic ** tendency. Credner's hypoth-
esis that the " Gospel according to Peter," which he regards
as the Gospel used by the Jewish Christians generally, and
strangely identifies with the Diatessaron of Tatian, was the
chief source of Justin's quotations, was thoroughly refuted
by Mr. Norton as long ago as the year 1834 in the Select
Journal of Foreign Periodical Literature, and afterwards in
a Note to the first edition of his work on the Genuineness of
the Gospels. % It is exposed on every side to overwhelming
objections, and has hardly a shadow of evidence to support
it. Almost our whole knowledge of this Gospel is derived
from the account of it by Serapion, bishop of Antioch near
the end of the second century (a.d. 191-213), who is the first
writer by whom it is mentioned. || He "found it for the
most part in accordance with the right doctrine of the
Saviour," but containing passages favoring the opinions of
the Docetae, by whom it was used. According to Origen, it
represented the " brethren " of Jesus as sons of Joseph by a
former wife.** It was evidently a book of very little note.
Though it plays a conspicuous part in the speculations of
modern German scholars and of Supernatural Religion about
• Sec above, p. 1 7 f .
t See Note C, at the end of this essay.
X Select Journal^ etc. (Boston), April, 1834, vol iii., part ii., pp. 234-242; Evidences 0/ the
Gennineness 0/ the GospeU^ vol. 1. (1837), Addit. Notes, pp. ccxxxii.-cclv. Sec also Bindemann,
who disctisses ably the whole question about Justin Martyr's Gospels, in the Theoi. Sttidien «.
Kritiken^ 1842, pp. 355-483 ; Semisch, Die apostoh DenkvAirdigkeiten u. s. w., pp. 43-59; on the
other side, Credner, Beitrdge u. s. w., vol. i. (1832); Mayerhoff, Hist.-crit. EinUit-ung in di§
PttrinUchen Sckriften (1835), p. 234 flf. ; Hilgenfeld, Krit. Untersuchungen u. s. w., p. 259 £E.
D Serapion's account of it is preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 12.
••Origen, Comm. in Matt. t. x. § 17, Opp. iii. 462 L
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 8 1
the origin of the Gospels and the quotations of Justin
Martyr, not a single fragment of it has come down to us.
This nominis umbra has therefore proved wonderfully con-
venient for those who have had occasion, in support of their
hypotheses, "to draw unlimited cheques," as Lightfoot
somewhere expresses it, "on the bank of the unknown."
Mr. Norton has shown, by an acute analysis of Serapion's
account of it, that in all probability it was not an historical,
but a doctrinal work.* Lipsius remarks: "The statement
of Theodoret (Hcer. Fab, ii. 2) that the Nazarenes had made
use of this Gospel rested probably on a misunderstanding.
The passage moreover in Justin Martyr (DiaL c, Tryph, 106)
in which some have thought to find mention of the Memorials
of Peter is very doubtful. . . . Herewith fall to the ground
all those hypotheses which make the Gospel of Peter into an
original work made use of by Justin Martyr, nigh related to
the Gospel of the Hebrews^ and either the Jewish Christian
basis of our canonical St. Mark [so Hilgenfeld], or, at any
rate, the Gospel of the Gnosticizing Ebionites " [Volkmar]. f
To this I would only add that almost the only fact of which
we are directly informed respecting the contents of the
so-called " Gospel of Peter " is that it favored the opinions
of the Docetae, to which Justin Martyr, who wrote a book
against the Marcionites (Euseb. Hist, EccL iv. 11. § 8), was
diametrically opposed.
Glancing back now over the ground we have traversed,
we find (i) that the general reception of our four Gospels as
sacred books throughout the Christian world in the time of
Irenaeus makes it almost certain that the " Memoirs called
Gospels," "composed by Apostles and their companions,"
which were used by his early contemporary Justin Martyr,
and were read in the Christian churches of his day as the
authoritative records of Christ's life and teaching, were the
same books ; (2) that this presumption is confirmed by the
actual use which Justin has made of all our Gospels, though
*GemtiM4mtst of ikt Gospth^ ad ed., voL iii. (1848), pp. 255-360; abridged edition (1867),
pp. 361-366.
t Smith and Wace^s Diet, 0/ Christian Biog.^ ii. 712.
82 CRITICAL ESSAYS
he has mainly followed, as was natural, the Gospel of
Matthew, and his direct citations from the Gospel of John,
and references to it, are few ; (3) that it is still further
strengthened, in respect to the Gospel of John, by the
evidences of its use between the time of Justin and that of
Irenaeus, both by the Catholic Christians and the Gnostics,
and especially by its inclusion in Tatian's Diatessaron ; (4)
that, of the two principal assumptions on which the counter-
argument is founded, one is demonstrably false and the
other baseless ; and (5) that the particular objections to the
view that Justin included the Gospel of John in his " Me-
moirs " are of very little weight. We are authorized then, I
believe, to regard it as in the highest degree probable, if not
morally certain, that in the time of Justin Martyr the Fourth
Gospel was generally received as the work of the Apostle
John.
III. We pass now to our third point, the use of the Fourth
Gospel by the various Gnostic sects. The length to which
the preceding discussion has extended makes it necessary to
treat this part of the subject in a very summary manner.
The Gnostic sects with which we are concerned became
conspicuous in the second quarter of the second century,
under the reigns of Hadrian (a.d. 117-138) and Antoninus
Pius (a.d. 1 38-161). The most prominent among them
were those founded by Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides.
To these may be added the Ophites or Naassenes.
Marcion has already been referred to.* He prepared a
Gospel for his followers by striking from the Gospel of Luke
what was inconsistent with his system, and treated in a sim-
ilar manner ten of the Epistles of Paul. He rejected the
other Gospels, not on the ground that they were spurious,
but because he believed their authors were under the influ-
ence of Jewish prejudices.! In proof pf this, he appealed
to the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians on which Baur
•See above, p. ai.
t See Irenaeus, Har. iii. 12. § 12.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 83
and his school lay so much stress. "Marcion," says Ter-
tullian, "having got the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians,
who reproves even the Apostles themselves for not walking
straight, according to the truth of the Gospel, . . . endeavors
to destroy the reputation of those Gospels which are truly
such, and are published under the name of Apostles, or also
of apostolic men, in order that he may give to his own the
credit which he takes away from them." * In another place,
Tertullian says, addressing Marcion: "If you had not re-
jected some and corrupted others of the Scriptures which
contradict your opinion, the Gospel of John would have con-
futed you."f Again: "Of those historians whom we pos-
sess, it appears that Marcion selected Luke for his mutila-
tions." X The fact that Marcion placed his rejection of the
Gospels on this ground, that the Apostles were but imper-
fectly enlightened, shows that he could not question their
apostolic authorship.jl His reference to the Epistle to the
Galatians indicates also that the "pillar-apostles" (Gal. ii.
9), Peter and John, were particularly in his mind. Peter, it
will be remembered, was regarded as having sanctioned the
Gospel of Mark. (See above, p. 23.)
It has been asserted by many modern critics, as Hilgen-
feld, Volkmar, Scholten, Davidson, and others, that, if Mar-
cion had been acquainted with the Gospel of John, he would
have chosen that, rather than Luke, for expurgation, on
account of its marked anti-Judaic character. But a careful
comparison of John's Gospel with Marcion's doctrines will
show that it contradicts them in so many places and so
*Ado. Marc. iv. 3. Comp. Prater, cc. 22-24. See also Norton, Genuifuruss of the
G^sf^, ad ed., in. '306 ff., 303 fif. ; or abridged edition, pp. 332 fif., 392 ff.
^Dg Carn4 Christ i^ c. 3.
XAdv. Mdrc. iv. 3. '*Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quern caederet." On account of the
ase of videtttr here, Dr. Davidson, following some German critics, says, " Even in speaking
abont Mardo«i*s treatment of Luke, Tertullian puts it forth as a conjecture." {Jntrod. to the
Study t/ Uu AT. 7*., ii 305.) A canjtctnre^ when Tertullian has devoted a whole book to the
refutation of Marcion from those passages of Luke which he retained! The context and all
the facts of the case show that no doubt can possibly have been intended ; and Tertullian often
uses videri^ not in the sense of "to seem,'* but of " to be seen," "to be apparent." See Apol.
c tqi De Orat. c. 21 ; Adv. Prax. cc. 26, 29; Adv. Jud. c. 5, from Isa. i. 12 ; and De Pretscr,
c 38, which has Ukewiae been misinterpreted.
I Apdles, the disciple of Marcion, appears to have used the Fourth Compel as an authoi ity
for facts; lee HippoL Ref. Nttr. vii. 38, p a6o, 1. 20; comp. John xx. 25, 27. Hippol)-tus say :
r«v Se evaryyeXujv ij rov aTCoord'kov ra aptOKovra avT<^ aipEtrm. Comp. Origcn, £"/.
md ckarM *m0S in Rufina% Lider de adtditratione Ubromm Origenis, appende-:' u* Origen,
Opp. IV. cad, ed DeUme.
84 CRITICAL ESSAYS
absolutely that it would have been utterly unsuitable for his
purpose. *
The theosophic or speculative Gnostics, as the Ophites,
Valentinians, and Basilidians, found more in John which, by
ingenious interpretation, they could use in support of their
systems.!
It is moreover to be observed, in regard to the Marcionites,
as Mr. Norton remarks, '* that their having recourse to the
mutilation of Luke's Gospel shows that no other history of
Christ's ministry existed more favorable to their doctrines ;
that, in the first half of the second century, when Marcion
lived, there was no Gnostic Gospel in being to which he
could appeal." J
We come now to Valentinus. It has already appeared that
the later Valentinians, represented by Ptolemy, Heracleon,
and the Excerpta Theodotiy received the Gospel of John
without question. || The presumption is therefore obviously
very strong that it was so received by the founder of the
sect. ** That this was so is the representation of Tertullian.
He contrasts the course pursued by Marcion and Valentinus.
**One man,'* he says, "perverts the Scriptures with his
hand, another by his exposition of their meaning. For,
if it appears that Valentinus uses the entire document, —
si Valentinus integro instrumcnto uti videtur, — he has yet
done violence to the truth more artfully than Marcion."
For Marcion, he goes on to say, openly used the knife,
not the pen ; Valentinus has spared the Scriptures, but
explains them away, or thrusts false meanings into them.ft
• See on this point Bleek, Eml. in d. N. y., 3d ed. (1875), p. 158, flf., with Mangold's note,
who remarks that ** it was simply impoi«ible for Marcion to choose the fourth Gospel" for this pur-
pose ; also WeizsUcker, Untersuchungen ^Xber d. evang. Gtschickte (1864), p. 230, ff. ; Luthardt,
Diejohan. Ursprung dts vierten Ev. (1874), p. 92, or Eng. trans., p. 108 f. ; Godet, Comm, sur
Vivangile de Si. Jean, 2d ed., tom. 1. (1876), p. 270 f.,or Eng. trans., i. 222 f.
t On the use of the N.T. by the Valentinians, see particularly G. Heinrici, Die valentinians
ische Gnosis und die Heilige Schrifty Berlin, 1871.
X Genuineness 0/ the Gospels^ 2d ed., iii. 304 ; abridged ed., p. 39a £.
II Sec above, p. 62 f.
••On this point, see Norton, Genuineness^ etc., 2d ed., iii. 321 f. ; abridged ed., p. 403 £.
ft Tertullian, Prtescr. c. 38. On the use of the word videiur^ sec above, p. 83, notet*
The context shows that no doubt is intended. If, however, the word should be taken in the sense
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 85
The testimony of Tertullian is apparently confirmed by
Hippolytus, who, in a professed account of the doctrines of
Valentinus (Ref. HcBr, vi. 21-37, or 16-32, Eng. trans.;
comp. the introduction, §3), says: "All the prophets, there-
fore, and the Law spoke from the Demiurgus, a foolish God,
he says, [and spoke] as fools, knowing nothing. Therefore,
says he, the Saviour says, ' All who have come before me
are thieves and robbers ' (John x. 8) ; and the Apostle, * The
mystery which was not made known to former generations' "
(Eph. iii. 4, 5). Here, however, it is urged that Hippolytus,
in his account of Valentinus, mixes up references to Valen-
tinus and his followers in such a manner that we cannot be
sure that, in the use of the ^z, "he says," he is not quoting
from some one of his school, and not the master. A full ex-
hibition of the facts and discussion of the question cannot
be given here. I believe there is a strong presumption that
Hippolytus is quoting from a work of Valentinus :* the reg-
ular exposition of the opinions of his disciples, Secundus,
Ptolemy, and Heracleon, does not begin till afterwards, in
c. 38, or c. 33 of the English translation ; but it is true that,
in the present text, i^rjai is used vaguely toward the end of
c. 35, where the opinions of the Italian and Oriental schools
are distinguished in reference to a certain point. I there-
fore do not press this quotation as direct proof of the use of
the Fourth Gospel by Valentinus himself.
Next to Marcion and Valentinus, the most eminent
among the founders of early Gnostic sects was Basilides, of
Alexandria. He flourished about a.d. 125. In the Homi-
lies on Luke generally ascribed to Origen, though some
have questioned their genuineness, we are told, in an ac-
count of apocryphal Gospels, that "Basilides had the au-
dacity to write a Gospel according to Basilides.'' f Ambrose
and Jerome copy this account in the prefaces to their re-
of "seems," the contrast must be betveeen the ostensible use of the Scriptures by Valentinus and
his virtual rejection of them by imposing upon thera a sense contrary to their teaching. Comp.
Iraueus, Nttr. Ui. la. % 12 : "acriptanu quidem confitentes, interpretationes vero convertunt."
-So Hitr. L 3. $ 6; iii. 14. § 4.
*See esp. Lightfnot, C0iossians, p. 366, note i ; p. 269, note i.
t So the Greek: Oiii»-n, f/om. i. in Luc, 0pp. iii 932, note; the Latin in Jerome's transla^
tkm reads, " Ausus fuit et l^nilides acribere evangehum, et suo illud nomine titulare."
86 CRITICAL ESSAYS
spective commentaries on Luke and Matthew ; but there is
no other notice of such a Gospel, or evidence of its existence,
in all Christian antiquity, so far as is known. The work
referred to could not have been a history of Christ's minis-
try, set up by Basilides and his followers in opposition to
the Gospels received by the catholic Christians. In that
case, we should certainly ha\e heard of it from those who
wrote in opposition to his heresy ; but he and his followers
are, on the contrarj', represented as appealing to our Gospels
of Matthew, Luke, and John;* and Hippolytus states ex-
pressly that the Basilidian account of all things concerning
the Saviour subsequent to the birth of Jesus agreed with
that given "in the Gospels." f The origin of the error is
easily explained : a work in which Basilides set forth his
view of the Gospel, i.e. of the teaching of Christ, might
naturally be spoken of as "the Gospel according to Basil-
ides." X We have an account of such a work. Agrippa
Castor, a contemporary of Basilides, and who, according to-
Eusebius, wrote a very able refutation of him, tells us that
Basilides "composed twenty-four books on the Gospel," fie rit
rvajjihor.\\ Clement of Alexandria, who is one of our prin-
cipal authorities for his opinions, cites his ■E^rn'n'"i, "Exposi-
tions," or "Interpretations," quoting a long passage from
"the twenty-third book."** In the "Dispute between
Archeiaus and Manes," the "thirteenth treatise" of Basi-
lides is cited, containing an explanation of the parable of
the Rich Man and Lazarus.+f I agree with Dr. Hort in
thinking it e,"(ceedingly probable that the work of Basilides
which Hippolytus cites so often in his account of his opin-
ions is the same which is quoted by Clement and Archeiaus,
and mentioned by Agrippa Castor. JJ Lipsius remarks: —
•nnidei Ihc work of Hipp>ilyiu>, la bt tunhct r
leiaodruand Epiphuiu* ill KinAtialrT'i O'^'""'"'
fXi/. Har. c jj, ore. i6, Eng. Inni.
JOn Ihis ukdI the Wm "G<nptl,"Me Norton,
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 87
In any case, the work must have been an exposition of some Gospel
by whose authority Basilides endeavored to establish his Gnostic doc-
trine. And it is anyhow most unlikely that he would have written a
commentary on a Grospel of his own composition. Of our canonical
Gospels, those of Matthew, Luke, and John, were used in his school; and
from the fragments just referred to we may reasonably conclude that it
was the Gospel of Luke on which he wrote his commentary.*
On this it may be observed, that the phrase of Agrippa
Castor, "twenty-four books on the Gospel," excludes the
idea that any particular Gospel, like that of Luke, could be
intended. Such a Gospel would have been named or other-
wise defined. The expression to tvayyiXiov, if it refers to any
book, must signify, in accordance with that use of the term
which has before been illustrated,! "the Gospels" collec-
tively. It is so understood by Norton, J Tischendorf, Lu-
thardt, Godet, and others. It would not in itself necessarily
denote precisely our four Gospels, though their use by
Justin Martyr, and the fact that Luke and John are com-
mented on by Basilides, and Matthew apparently referred to
by him, would make it probable that they were meant.
There is, however, another sense of the word ** Gospel" as
used by Basilides, — namely, "the knowledge {gnosis) of su-
permundane things " (Hippol. Ref, Hcer, vii. 27) ; and " the
Gospel " in this sense plays a prominent part in his system
as set forth by Hippolytus. The "twenty-four books on
the Gospel" mentioned by Agrippa Castor, the "Exposi-
tions" or "Interpretations" of Clement, may perhaps have
related to "the Gospel" in this sense. We cannot there-
fore, I think, argue confidently from this title that Basilides
wrote a Commentary on our Four Gospels, though it natu-
rally suggests this. It is evident, at any rate, that he
supported his gnosis by far-fetched interpretations of the
sayings of Christ as recorded in our Gospels ; and that the
supposition that he had a Gospel of his own composition, in
the sense of a history of Christ's life and teaching, has not
only no positive support of any strength, but is on various
* See the art. Go$p*U in the work just cited, ii. 715. Corap. Hilgenfeld, Einl. p. 47.
t See above, p. 34.
ISee Norton's Gettuiruneu o/th* Gospels^ ad ed., iii. 235-239, pr abridged edition, p. 351 £F.
88 CRITICAL ESSAYS
accounts utterly improbable. That he used an apocryphal
Gospel not of his own composition is a supposition for
which there is not a particle of evidence of any kind whatever.
I have spoken of Basilides as quoting the Gospel of John
in the citations from him by Hippolytus. The passages are
the following: "And this, he says, is what is said in the
Gospels : * The true light, which enlighteneth every man,
was coming into the world.*" (R^f- Hcer.vii. 22, ore. 10,
Eng. trans.) The words quoted agree exactly with John
i. 9 in the Greek, though I have adopted a different con-
struction from that of the common version in translating.
Again, *' And that each thing, he says, has its own seasons,
the Saviour is a sufficient witness, when he says, * My hour
is not yet come.' " {R^f- Hcer. vii. 27, al. 15 ; John ii. 4.)
Here two objections are raised: first, that we cannot
infer from the <?//<t, "he says/' that Hippolytus is quoting
from a treatise by Basilides himself ; and, secondly, that the
system of Basilides as set forth by Hippolytus represents a
later development of the original scheme, — in other words,
that he is quoting the writings and describing the opinions
of the disciples of the school, and not of its founder.
To analyze the account of Hippolytus and give the rea-
sons for taking a different view would require an article by
itself, and cannot be undertaken here. But on the first
point I will quote a writer who will not be suspected of an
" apologetic " tendency, Matthew Arnold. He says : —
It is true that the author of the Philosophumena [another name
for the "Refutation of all Heresies " commonly ascribed to Hippolytus]
sometimes mixes up the opinions of the master of a school with those
of his followers, so that it is difficult to distinguish between them. But,
if we take all doubtful cases of the kind and compare them with our
present case, we shall find that it is not one of them. It is not true
that here, where the name of Basileides has come just before, and
where no mention of his son or of his disciples has intervened since,
there is any such ambiguity as is found in other cases. It is not true
that the author of the Philosophumena wields the subjectless he says in
the random manner alleged, with no other formula for quotation both
from the master and from the followers. In general, he uses the for-
mula according to them (kot' avroic) when he quotes from the school, and
the formula he says (<pffoi) when he gives the dicta of the master. And
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 89
in this particular case he manifestly quotes the dicta of Basileides, and
no one who had not a theory to serve would ever dream of doubting it.
Basileides, therefore, about the year 125 of our era, had before him the
Fourth Gospel.*
On the second point, the view that Hippolytus as con-
trasted with Irenaeus has given an account of the system of
Basilides himself is the prevailing one among scholars : it is
held, for example, by Jacobi, Bunsen, Baur, Hase, Uhlhom,
Moller, Mansel, Pressens^, and Dr. Hort. The principal
representative of the opposite opinion is Hilgenfeld, with
whom agree Lipsius, Volkmar, and Scholten.f Dr. Hort
has discussed the matter very ably and fairly in his article
Basilides in Smith and Wace*s Dictionary of Christian Biog-
raphy; and, so far as I can judge, his conclusions are sound.
In view of all the evidence, then, I think we have good
reason for believing that the Gospel of John was one of a
collection of Gospels, probably embracing our four, which
Basilides and his followers received as authoritative about
the year 125.
The first heretics described by Hippolytus are the Oriental
Gnostics, — the Ophites, or Naassenes, and the Peratae, a
kindred sect. They are generally regarded as the earliest
Gnostics. Hippolytus cites from their writings numerous
quotations from the Gospel of John. % But it is the view
of many scholars that Hippolytus is really describing the
opinions and quoting the writings of the later representa-
tives of these sects. || Not having investigated this point
sufficiently, I shall argue only from what is undisputed.
Were I undertaking a full discussion of the external evi-
dences of John's authorship of the Fourth Gospel, it would
be necessary to consider here some questions about Papias,
•Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible (1875), p. 268 f., Eng. ed. See, to the same effect,
Wensilcker, UnUrnickMngtH u. s. w., p. 232 ff. Compare Dr. Hort, art. Basilides in Smith and
Wace's Diet, 0/ Christian Biag.^ i. 27X, and Westcott, Canon of the N. 7"., 4th ed., p. 288. On
the other side, see Schohen, Did dltesten Zeugnisse u. a. w. (1S67), p. 65 f. ; Sup. Rei.i ii. 51^
7th ed., and the writers there cited.
t The two most recent disctxssions are that by Jacobi, in Brieger's Zeitschrift /Hr Kircken-
gnehickUf 1876-77, L 481-544, and, on the other side, by Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitsckri/t /. iviss,
Theol.t 1878, zzL 228-250, where the literature of the subject is given pretty fully. Moeller, in a
brief notice of the two articles {%negti^%Zeitsckriftt 1877-78, iL 422), adheres to his former view,
versus Hi^enfeld.
XRef. Herr. r. 7-9 (Naassenes), 12, 16, 17 (Peratae).
I Sec liprius in Hilgenf eld's ZeitscAr., 1863, p. 410 f; iS'>4, p. 37 f.
90 CRITICAL ESSAYS
and his use of the First Epistle of John, as reported by
Eusebius ; also the apparent reference to the First Epistle
of John by Polycarp, and his relation to Irenaeus ; and, fur-
ther, to notice the Ignatian Epistles, the "Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs," and the Epistle to Diognetus. On
the first two subjects, and on "The Silence of Eusebius,"
connected with the former, I would refer to the very able
articles of Professor (now Bishop) Lightfoot in the Contem-
porary Review* As to the Ignatian Epistles, their genuine-
ness in any form is questionable, to say nothing of the state
of the text, though the shorter Epistles may belong, in sub-
stance, to the middle of the second century; the "Testa-
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs *' are interpolated, and need
a thoroughly critical edition ; and the date of the Epistle to
Diognetus is uncertain. In any event, I do not think the
references to the Gospel of John in these writings are of
great importance.
But to return to our proper subject. The use of the
Gospel of John by the Gnostic sects, in the second century,
affords a strong, it may seem decisive, argument for its
genuineness. However ingeniously they might pervert its
meaning, it is obvious to every intelligent reader that this
Gospel is, in reality, diametrically opposed to the essential
principles of Gnosticism. The Christian Fathers, in their
contests with the Gnostics, found it an armory of weapons.
Such being the case, let us suppose it to have been forged
about the middle of the second century, in the heat of the
Gnostic controversy. It was thus a book which the founders
of the Gnostic sects, who flourished ten, twenty, or thirty
years before, had never heard of. How is it possible, then,
to explain the fact that their followers should have not only
received it, but have received it, so far as appears, without
question or discussion } It must have been received by the
* Contemporary Reviewy January, 1875, xxv. 169 ff., "The Silence of Eusc'bius**; May, 1875,
p. 827 ff., " Polycarp of Smyrna"; August and October, 1875, xxvi. 377 ff., 828 ff., *Papias
of HierapoHs." On "the silence of Eusebius," see also Westcott, Canon 0/ the N . 7"., 4th ed.,
p. 229 f. With Lightfool's article in the Contemp. Review for February, 1875, "The Igiiatian
Epistles,'* should be compyared the Preface to Supernatural Religion^ in the sixth and later
editions of that work.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 9 1
founders of these sects from the beginning; and we have no
reason to distrust the testimony of Hippolytus to what is
under these circumstances so probable, and is attested by
other evidence. But, if received by the founders of these
sects, it must have been received at the same time by the
catholic Christians. They would not, at a later period,
have taken the spurious work from the heretics with whom
they were in controversy. It was then generally received,
both by Gnostics and their opponents, between the years
120 and 130. What follows .? It follows that the Gnostics
of that date received it because they could not help it.
They would not have admitted the authority of a book which
could be reconciled with their doctrines only by the most
forced interpretation, if they could have destroyed its au-
thority by denying its genuineness. Its genuineness could
then be easily ascertained. Ephesus was one of the prin-
cipal cities of the Eastern world, the centre of extensive
commerce, the metropolis of Asia Minor. Hundreds, if not
thousands, of people were living who had known the Apos-
tle John. The question whether he, the beloved disciple,
had committed to writing his recollections of his Master's
life and teaching, was one of the greatest interest. The
fact of the reception of the Fourth Gospel as his work at
so early a date, by parties so violently opposed to each
other, proves that the evidence of its genuineness was deci-
sive. This argument is further confirmed by the use of the
Gospel by the opposing parties in the later Montanistic con-
troversy, and in the disputes about the time of celebrating
Easter.
IV. The last external evidence which I shall adduce in
favor of the genuineness of the Gospel of John is of a very
early date, being attached to the Gospel itself, and found in
all the copies which have come down to us, whether in the
original or in ancient versions. I refer to what is now num-
bered as the twenty-fifth verse, with the last half of the
twenty-fourth, of the concluding chapter of the Gospel.
The last three verses of the chapter read thus : " Hence
9^ CRITICAL ESSAYS
this report spread among the brethren, that that disciple
was not to die ; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would
not die ; but, If I will that he remain till I come, what is
that to thee ? This is the disciple that testifieth concerning
these things, and wrote these things." Here, I suppose,
the author of the Gospel ended. The addition follows :
*'And we know that his testimony is true. And there are
many other things that Jesus did, which, if they should be
severally written, / do not think that the world itself would
contain the books written."
In the words "And we know that his testimony is true,"
we manifestly have either a real or a forged attestation to
the truth and genuineness of the Gospel. Suppose the
Gospel written by an anonymous forger of the middle of the
second century : what possible credit could he suppose
would be given to it by an anonymous attestation like this I
A forger with such a purpose would have named his pre-
tended authority, and have represented the attestation as
formally and solemnly given. The attestation, as it stands,
clearly presupposes that the author (or authors) of it was
known to those who first received the copy of the Gospel
containing it.
What view, then, are we to take of it.^ The following
supposition, which I give in the words of Mr. Norton,
affords an easy and natural explanation, and, so far as I can
see, the only plausible explanation of the phenomena. Mr.
Norton says : —
According to ancient accounts, St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus,
over the church in which city he presided during the latter part of his
long life. It is not improbable that, before his death, its circulation had
been confined to the members of that church. Hence copies of it would
be after^^'ards obtained ; and the copy provided for transcription was, we
may suppose, accompanied by the strong attestation which we now find,
given by the church, or the elders of the church, to their full faith in the
accounts which it contained, and by the concluding remark, made by the
writer of this attestation in his own person.*
The style of this addition, it is further to be observed,
*Nortonf Gtnuinentss of the Gospels^ 2d ed., vol. i., Addit. Notes, p. xcv. 1
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 93
differs from that of the writer of the Gospel. It was prob-
ably first written a little separate from the text, and after-
wards became incorporated with it by a natural mistake of
transcribers. According to Tischendorf, the last verse of
this Gospel in the Codex Sinaiticus is written in a different
hand from the preceding, though by a contemporary scribe.
Ke accordingly rejects it as not having belonged to the
Gospel as it was originally written. Tregelles does not
agree with him on the palaeographical question.
The passage we have been considering suggests various
questions and remarks, but cannot be further treated here.
I will only refer to the recent commentaries of Godet and
Westcott, and end abruptly the present discussion, which
has already extended to a far greater length than was
originally intended.
Note A. (See p. 24.)
On the quotations of Matt. xi. 27 {comp, Luke x. 22) in the writings
OF THE Christian Fathers.
Justin Martyr {.Dial, c. 100) quotes the following as "written in the Gospel":
** All things have been delivered (7ra/9a<5c<5ar{w) to me by the Father ; and no
one hwweth {yivC>aiu.C) the Father save the Son, neither [knoweth any one] the
Sod saver the Father, and they to whomsoever the Son may reveal him " {p\q dv
o yAh^ dTroKoAtr^). In the Apology (c. 63) he quotes the passage twice, thus : " No
one knew (or " hath known," lyyuS) the Father save the Son, neither [knoweth
any one] the Son save the Father, and they to whomsoever the Son may reveal
him"; the order of the words, however, varying in the last clause, in which
h vi^ stands once after dTroica^i^.
It is unnecessary to quote the corresponding passages in our Gospels in full,
as the reader can readily turn to them. The variations of Justin are, (i) the
use of the perfect (TrapotJ^tJorm), "have been delivered," instead of the aorist
(Tapc<5<ift7), strictly, "were delivered," though our idiom often requires the aorist
to be translated by the perfect; (2)"M^ Father " for " /«v Father" (omitting
uov) ; (3) the use, in two out of three instances, of the aorist ^> vw, " knew," or
" hath known," instead of the present ytvoHJKei (this is the word used by Luke ;
Matthew has iirqtvcxficet); (4) the transposition of the two principal clauses;
(5) the omission of rig kiri'yiv6aKei, " knoweth any one," in the second clause, if
we compare Matthew, or the substitution of " the Father " and " the Son " for
"who the Father is" and "who the Son is," if we compare Luke; (6) the use
of the plural (oif dv), " fA^ to whomsoever," instead of the singular (v dv), " Ae
to whomsoever"; and (7) the substitution of "may reveal "( dTroKaAt-T/t? ) for
"may will to reveal" {^iovXTfrai atTOKtO.v^Hii).
The author of Supernatural Religion devotes more than ten pages to this pas-
CRITICAL ESSAYS
sage (vol. i. pp. 401-411, 7th ed.), which he regards a» of great importance, xai, |
insists, on the ground of ihesi
,r Goapels. To follow h;
that Jus
have taken itfrom '
p would be tedious. His hindami
ic peculiar £onn of the quotation in Justin" (here he
refers especially lo the v»rialions numbered 3 and 4, above) "occurred in what
came to be considered heretical Gospels, and constituted the basis of important
Gnostic doctrines" {p. 403). Again, "Here we have the exact quotation twice
made by Justin, with the f jitj and the same order, set forth as the reading of the
Gospels of the Marcosians and othei sects, and the highest testimony to their
■yitem" {pp. 406, 407). Yet again, "Ireiiaeus states with equal distinctness that
Gospels used by Gnostic sects had the reading of Justin" (p. 411). Now
Irenxus nowhere stales any such thing. Irenaeus nowhere speaks, nor does any
other ancient writer, of a Gospel of the Marcosians. If this seel had set up
a Gospel (1'.^.. a history of Christ's ministry') of its own, in opposition to the
Four Gospels received by the whole Christian Church in the time of IrcnXUS,
we should have had unequivocal evidence of the fact. The denunciations of
Marcion for mutilating the Gospel of Luke show how such a work would have
been treated. Irenxus is indignant that the Valentinians should give
"arecentwork of thctr.own composition" the name of "The Gospel of tbs ]
Truth" or "The True Gospel" (.^rr. iii. 11. $9); but this was in alt prob- |
ability a doctrinal or speculative, not an historical work. ■ The Valentinians *
received our four Gospels without controversy, and argued from them in
port of their doctrines as best they could. (See Irenicus, ff^r. i. cc 7, 8, for
ntimerous examples of their arguments from the Gospels; and compare iii
ij; 12.512: and Tetlull. /'ra-jfr. c. 3S.]
Correcting this fundamental error of the author of Supernatur^ Rdigiet, the I
facts which he himself stales respecting the various forms in which this passagi
is quoted by writers who unquestionably used our four Gospels as their sole o:
main authority, are sufhcient to show the groundlessness of his conclusion. But
for the sake of illustrating the freedom of the Christian Fathers in quotation,
and the falsity of the premises on which this writer reasons, I will exhibit the
facts somewhat more fully than they have been presented elsewhere, though
the quotations of this passage have been elaborately discussed by Credner,t
Semisch,! Hilgenfeld.H Volckmar,** and Wcstcort.tt Of these discussions
those by Semisch and Vokkmar are particularly valuable,
I will now notice all the variations of Justin from the text of our Gospels
in this passage (see above), comparing them with those found in other wrilere.
The two most important (Nos. 3 and 4) will be exnmined last.
I, jTQ/iodMorni for ■nnptl&lhi is wholly unimportant. It is found in Luke x. zs
L
t SiUr^nMur Ei«i. U dU iiHaciii Sckri/Un <tB;i], i. pp. 14K-ISC.
i DU apa^sl. DtnlrMTiifluiUn dtx Mart. 7iifri»u(iS4S), pp. 364-370.
( KrUuclu UiUtrmclumgtit tlitr dii EtoMftiiiH 7$ulm'i, u. 1. w. (18^), pp. >ai-io6.
'*Dai Etant. tfarciaia (iSsi)i pp. li-^o. I foltow the litli in •pclllag "Volckmir,"
tl Cmntn ^ Uu f/, T; 4t)l «L (187]), pp. r]]-i]s. Sec also Saiuiar, THi Gatftli in ti
Sicmd Cinitirf, pp. m, ij], and ehapi. ii., ir., tL
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 95
in the uncial MSS. K and FT, the cursives 60, 253, p^^, w»c', three of Colbert's
MSS. (see Wetstein in he, and his Prolegom. p. 48), and in Hippolytus {Noet.
c 6), not heretofore noticed.
2. " The Father" for "w^ Father/*//'"' being omitted, is equally trivial; so
in the Sinaitic MS. and the cursive 71 in Matthew, and in Luke the Codex
Bczae (D), with some of the best MSS. of the Old Latin and Vulgate versions,
and other authorities (see Tischendorf), also Hippolytus as above.
5. The omission of nq eirtyivooKei or its equivalent in the second clause is
found in the citation of the Marcosians in Irenaeus (i. 20. § 3), other Gnostics
in Irenaeus (iv. 6. § i), and in iRENiEUS himself three times (ii. 6. § i ; iv. 6. §§3,
7, but »o/§ i). It occurs twice in Clement of Alexandria {Pa(/. i. 9, p. 150
ed. Potter; Strom, i. 28, p. 425), once in Origen (CV/j. vi. 17, p. 643), once in
Athanasius {^Orat, cont, Arian, iii. c 46, p. 596), 6 times in Epiphanius
{Ancor, c 67, p. 71, repeated Hot. Ixxiv. 4, p. 891 ; c. 73, p. 78, repeated Htir,
Ixxiv. 10, p. 898; and Har, Ixiv. 9, p. 643; Ixxvi. 7, 29, 32, pp. 943, 977, 981);
once in Chrysostom (In/oan. Horn, Ix. §1, Opp. viii. 353 (404) A, ed. Montf.),
once in Pseudo-Cyril (Dt Trin, c i), once in Maximus Confessor {Schol. in
Dion. Areop. dt div. Norn, c i. § 2, in Migne, Patrol, Gr. iv. 189), once in
Joannes Damascenus {De Fide Orth. i. i) and twice in Georgius Pachy-
MERES {Paraphr, in Dion. Areop. de div, Nom, c. i, §1, and de myst, Theol, c.
5; Migne, iii. 613, 1061). It is noticeable that the Clementine Homilies
(xviL 4; xviii. 4, 13 bis, 20) do not here agree with Justin.
6. There is no difference between olf av, **they to whomsoever," and 9 av (or
rdv), "^ to whomsoever," so far as the sense is concerned. The plural, which *
Justin uses, is found in the Clementine Homilies 5 times (xvii. 4; xviii. 4,
13 bis^ 20), and Iren^eus 5 times {Har, ii. 6w § i; iv. 6.§§ 3, 4, 7, and so the
Syriac ; 7. §3). The singular is used in the citations given by Irenxus from the
Marcosians (i. 20. § 3) and " those who would be wiser than the Apostles," as
well as in his own express quotation from Matthew {.Hctr, iv. 6. § i) ; and so by
the Christian Fathers generally.
7. The next variation (olf av 6 vtoc) aizoKaT^n^i) for ftovXTrrat airoKoXvifHii is a
natural shortening of the expression, which we find in the citation of the Mar-
cosians (Iren. i. 20. § 3) and in Iren/eus himself 5 times (ii. 6. § i ; iv. 6. §§ 3, 4,
7, and so the Syriac; 7. § 3) ; in Tertullian twice {Afarc, iv. 25 ; Prascr. c. 21),
and perhaps in Marcion's mutilated Luke; in Clement of Alexandria
5 times {Cohort, i. 10, p. 10; Pad, i. 5, p. 109; Strom. \, 28, p. 425; v. 13, p. 697 ;
▼ii. 18, p. 901; — Quis dives, etc, c. 8, p. 939, is a mere allusion); Origen 4
times {Cels, vi. 17, p. 643; vii. 44, p. 726 ; in Joan. torn. i. c. 42, p. 45 : torn, xxxii.
c. 18, p. 450) ; the Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata (Routh, Rell.
sacra, ed. alt. iii. 290) ; EusEBius or Marcellus in Eusebius 3 times {Ecd.
TlieolA. 15, l6,pp.76», 77 \ anoKaXviltei ; Eel. proph. i. 12 [Migne, Patrol, Gr. xxii.
col. 1065], a-xoKaXh^)', Athanasius 4 or 5 times {Decrct. Nic. Syn. c. 12, Opp.
i. 218 ed. Bened. ; Orat, cont, Arian, i. c. 12, p. 416; c. 39, p. 443; iii. c. 46, p.
596, in the best MSS.; Serm, maj. de Fide, c. 27, in Montf. Coll. nova, ii. 14);
Cyril of Jerusalem twice {Cat. vi. 6; x. i); Epiphanius 4 times {Ancor, c.
67, p. 71, repeated //or, Ixxiv. 4, p. 891, but here cnzoKalinrTtL or -rr?; Htrr, Ixv.
6v p. 613; and without b vlbq, Har, Ixxvi. 7, p. 943 ; c. 29, p. 977) ; Basil the
Great {Adv, Eunom, v. Opp. i. 311 (441) A); Cyril of Alexandria 3 times
Tku, Opp. V. 131, 149; Cont, Julian, viii. Opp. vi. b. p. 270).
,6
CRITICAL ESSAYS
I
All of these Vi
memory, a.Tid the cj
affords no [jtound for m
re obviously unimportant, and natural in quoting from
wiiich they occur in writers who unquestionably used
t main authority shows that their occurrence in Jiutin
iupposing that he did not also so use them.
Wc will then turn our attention to the two variations on which the main stress
is laid by the author of Sufiernatura/ Riligiaii. He greatly exaggerates tbeir
importance, and neglects an obvious explanation of their origin.
3. We find lyvu, "knew," or "hath known," for ytsueai or triyivuaKti^ in the
Clsmektink Homilies 6 times (xvii. 4; xviii.4,ti, ij ^>, so), and once appar-
ently in the Recognitioks (ii. 47, nojnt); twice in Tertulltan (Adv. Marc. ii.
27 ; Praicr. c. 11) ; in CLEMENT av ALEXANDRIA 6 times \Ceharl. \. 10, p. lo;
Pad. i. 5, p. logj i. 8, p. J41 ; i. 9, p. 150; SIrem. i. 28, p. 425; v. 13, p. 697 j —
once the present, ytviiwti, Slram. vii. 18, p. 901 ; and once, in a mere allusion,
imyaiixm. Quit diva, etc.. c. 8, p. 939) ; Okigen uniformly, :o limes {Off. i. 440,
643, 726; ii. 537; iv. 45, 134, 2S4, 315, 450 iit), and in the Latin vemon of his
writings of which the Greek is lost nm'if is used lo times, including Ofifi. iii. 58,
where iiovil is used for Matthew and siitior Luke ; icU occurs also Off. iv. J15.
The SVNOD OF ANTlQtH ■veriuj Paul of Samosata has it once {Routh, Rtll. siura,
iii. 290)1 Alexander op Alexamiria once {Epiil. ad AUi. c j, Migne, Fair.
Gr. iviii. 556); EusEBius 6 times (Eccl. Thtol. i. ii, 16, pp. 72', 77''; Dem.
Evang.iv. 3, V. I, pp. 149=, 216*; £■!!■/. /™/^. i. 12, Migne xxii. 1065; Nisi.
Ecel. i. s. §2); DtDVMUSOF Alexandria once l.De TViii. I'l. 5, p. 142); Epifha-
sirs twice (Ata-. Ixv. 6, p. 613; Ixxiv. 10, p. 898),— Of these writers, Alexander
has Mr once; Eusebius yiviieai or iT/yiviiasx 3 times, Didymus yiviasei fol-
lowed by i!riyii>uiKii 3 limes, Epiphanius has olAc ^ or 10 times, and it is found
also in Basil, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. Marcellus in Eusebius
(£«/. TUfo/. i. 15, 16, pp. 76*, 78*) wavers between aide (twice) and ji«itT«i or
iirijiiiiioMi (once), and perhaps *)tu (c. 16, p. 77'').
4. We find the transperition of the clauses, " No one knoweth \or knew]
the Father " coming first, in one MS. in Matthew (Malthtei's d) and two in Luke
(the uncial U and i "'). in the Diateiiaran of TaTIan as iu text is given in the
Armenian version of Ephraem's Commentary upon it, traialated into Latin by
Aucher, and published by G. Moesinger {EvangrlH eoHiordiOtis ExfosiHo, etc,
Venct. rS76),* the Clementine Homilies 5 times (xvii. 4; xviii. 4. 13 bit, 20),
the Makcosians in Iren«us (i. 10. 53), other Gnostics in Irenfeus (iv. 6. § i),
and !KEN.ttTs himself (ii. 6. §1; iv. 6.83, iwtjiu $1 and §7, Za/., but here a
Syriac version represented by a MS. of the 6th century, gives the transposed
form; see Harvey's Irenieus, ii. 443), Tertullian once {Adv. Marc. iv. 25],
Origen once (De Priniif. ii. 6. § 1, Opp. i. 89, in a Latin version), the Synod
OF Antiock against Paul of Samosata (as cited above), the Marcionits in
PsEUDo-ORIO. Dial, de recta in Dnim fide. Sect. i. Opp. i. 817); EUSEBIUS 4
limes (Ecd. Tkeot. i. ii; Demi. Evang. iv. 3, v. I ; Uitt. Ecd. i. 2. ja), Alexan-
der uK Alexandria once (EpisLad Alex.c 12, Migne xviii. 565); Atkanasius
twice {/« illud. Omnia miii Iradihi lunl, c. 5, Opp. i. 107 ; Serm. maj. de Fide, c.
27, in Montf. Cidl. nma, ii. 14I. Didymus once (De Trin. i. 26, p. 72), Epipha-
nius 7 limes, or g times if the passages transferred from the Anceralui are reck-
oned ((%>■ i. 766, 891, 89S, 977. 981 ; ii. 16, tg, 67, 73). Chrysostom once (/«
•ThUte»d.(pp. 1
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
97
jtt€*Mi^ elc^ c 14, Opp. iiL 771 (931) ed. Montf.), Pseudo-Cvril of Alsxan-
DUA once (ZV TVh'h. c. i, Opp. vi. c p. i)< Pseudo-Cassarius Iwicc {Diai.
L w^. 3 and to, in Mignc xntviii. 861, 877), Maximus Confessor onie {ScAirl.
f im Dion. Areop. di dw. Jfem. c. I. §2, in Migne iv. 1S9), Joannes Damas-
I CENUS once {,I>t Fidi Ortk. i. 1), and Georgius PacHVmErES once (Farafhr.
,. «• Dion. Ateop. dt dip. Nem. c 1. Ji, in Migne iii. 61 j).
This transposition is found in MS. b of the Old Latin, and some of the
Latin Fathers, t^^ Phaebadius {Cont. Arian. c 10) ; and most MSS. of the Old
Latin, and the Vulgate, read novit in Matthew instead of icil or cognoscU, which
they have in Luke ; but it is not worth while to explore this territory here.
Il is manifest from this presentation of the facts that the variations lo which
the author of SuftmaSural Rrligion attaches so much importance, — the trins-
poaition of the clauses, and the use of the past tense for the present, — being not
peculiar to Justin and the heretics, but found in a multitude of the Christian
Fathers, can aSord no proof or presumption that the source of his quotation
was not our present Gospels — that he does not use in making it (Dial, c loo)
the term " ilic Gospel " in the same sense in which it is used by his later con-
Ktnporaries. It indeed seems probable that the reading tyva, though not in the
USS. which have come down to us, had already found ila way into some MSS.
of the second century, particularly in Matthew. Its almost uniform occurrence
in the numerous citations of the passage by Clement of Ale^tandria and Origen,
■nd tbe reading of the Old Latin MSS. and oE the Vulgate, favor this view.
The transposition of the clauses may also have been found in some MSS. of
that date, as we even now find its existence in several manuscripts. But it is not
necessary to suppose this ; the Fathers, in quoting, make such transpositions
with great freedom. The stress laid on the transposition in Suptmaturai Rtlig-
mt is very extravagant. It did not affect the sense, but merely made more
prominent the knowledge and the revelation of the Father by Christ. The
importance of the change from the present tense to the past is also preposter-
ously exaggerated. It merely expressed more distinctly what the present implied.
Further, these variations admit of an easy explanation. In preaching Chria-
lianity to unbelievers, special emphasis would be laid on the fact that Christ
had come to give men a true knowledge of God, of God in his paternal char-
■clcr. The transposition of the clauses in quoting this striking passage, which
must have been often quoted, would thus be very natural ; and so would be the
change from the present tense to the past. The Gnostics, moreover, regarding
the God of the Old Testament as an inferior and imperfect being, maintained
that the true God, the Supreme, had been wholly unknown to men before he
was revealed by Christ. They would, therefore, naturally quote the passage in
the same way ; and the variation at an early period would become wide-spread.
That Ircnzns should notice a difference between the form in which the Gnostics
quoted (he text and that which he found in his own copy of the Gospels is not
strange ; but there is nothing in what he says which implies that it was anything
more than a various reading or corruption of the text of Matthew or Luke ; he
nowbere charges the Gnostics with taking it from Gospels peculiar to them-
•elvcA. It is their interprttalion of the passage rather than their text which he
combats. The change of order further occurs frequently in writers who are
treating of the divinity of Christ, as Athanasius, Didymus, Epiphanius. Here
the occasion teems to have been that the fact that Christ alone fully knew the
J
9^ CRITICAL ESSAYS
Father was regarded as proving his deity, and the transposition of the clauses
gave special prominence to that fact Another occasion was the circumstance
that when the Father and the Son are mentioned together in the New Testament,
the name of the Father commonly stands first ; and the transposition was the
more natural in the present case, because, as Semisch remarks, the word
" Father " immediately precedes.
In this statement, I have only exhibited those variations in the quotation of
this text by the Fathers which correspond with those of Justin. These give a
very inadequate idea of the extraordinary variety of forms in which the passage
appears. I will simply observe, by way of specimen, that, while Eusebius quotes
the passage at least eleven times, none of his quotations verbally agree. (See
Cont. MarceL i. i, p. 6»; Ecd. Theol, i. 12, 15, 16 bis^ 20, pp. 72®, 76^, 77*,
78*, 88**; Dem, Evang,vt. 3, v. i, pp. 149®, 216*; Comm, in Ps, ex.; Eel.
proph. i. 12 ; Hist. Eccl. i. 2. § 2.) The two quotations which he introduces from
Marcellus {Eccl. TheoL i. 15 and 16) present a still different form. In three of
Eusebius's quotations for ei /ir) b TraHfp he reads el fi^ 6 fidvo^ ytwijaa^ avrhv varifp
{Eccl. Theol. i. 12, p. 72°; Dem. Evang. iv. 3, p. 149**; and Hist EccL i. 2. § 2).
If this were found in Justin Mart}T, it would be insisted that it must have come
from some apocryphal Gospel, and the triple recurrence would be thought to
prove it.* The variations in Epiphanius, who also quotes the passage eleven
times (not counting the transfers from the Ancoratus), are perhaps equally
remarkable. PsEUDO-CiESARius quotes it thus {Dial. i. rcsp. 3): Ovdelc yap
olde Tov naripa el fiy 6 vlof, ovdk rbv vl6v tl^ kn iararai el fi^ 6 iraT^p. But
the false premises from which the author of Supernatural Religion reasons
have been sufficiently illustrated.
This Note is too long to allow the discussion of some points which need a
fuller treatment. I will only call attention to the fact that in the list of passages
in our Gospels which Irenasus (i. 20. § 2) represents the Marcosians as pervert-
ing, there is one which presents a difficulty, and which some have supposed to
be taken from an apocryphal Gospel. As it stands, the text is corrupt, and the
passage makes no sense. Mr. Norton in ^^ first edition of his Genuineness of the
Gospels (1837), vol. i. Addit. Notes, p. ccxlii., has given a plausible conjectural
emendation of the text in Irenaeus, which serves to clear up the difficulty. For
the iroAP^/af k'KiQhpiaa of Irenaeus he would read TroA/ot aai kireObfUfaav, for deiv,
elvai (so the old Latin version), and for rfm tov iv6^, did tov epovvToc- The
passage then becomes a modification of Matt. xiii. 17. Dr. Westcott {Canon
of the N. 71, 4th ed., p. 306) proposes eTre&vfitfaav for eTredifir^a, without being
aware that his conjecture had been anticipated. But that change alone does
not restore sense to the passage. The masterly review of Credner*s hypothesis
that Justin's Memoirs were the so-called " Gospel according to Peter," which
contains Mr. Norton's emendation to which I have referred, was not reprinted
in the second edition of his work. It seemed to me, therefore, worth while to
notice it here.
* Compare Supernatural Rtligiony \. 341.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 99
NOTE B. (Sec p. 25.)
ON THE TITLE, *' MEMOIRS BY the APOSTLES."
In regard to the use of the article here, it may be well to notice the points
made by Hilgenfeld, perhaps the ablest and the fairest of the German critics
who regard some apoayphal Gospel or Gospels as the chief source of Justin's
quotations. His book is certainly the most valuable which has appeared on
that side of the question.*
In the important passage {Dial* c 103), in which Justin says, "In the
Memoirs which I affirm to have been composed by the Apostles of Christ and
their companions (a ^ri^ vnd rCtv airoerdXav avTov Kat ruv kmivoig napanohn^if-
a&vruv owrerdx^), it is written that sweat, like drops of blood [or ** clots/'
dp6fiPoi\t flowed from him while he was praying " (comp. Luke xxii. 44), and
which Semisch very naturally compares, as regards its description of the
Gospels, with a striking passage of Tertullian,t Hilgenfeld insists —
(i) That the article denotes '< the collective body " {dU Gesammtheit) of the
Apostles and their companions.
(2) "The Memoirs by the Apostles "is the phrase generally used by Justin.
This might indeed be justified by the fact that the Gospels of Mark and Luke
were regarded as founded on the direct communications of Apostles or sanc-
tioned by them; but this, Hilgenfeld says, is giving up the sharp distinction
between the Gospels as written two of them by Apostles and two by Apostolic
men*
(3) The fact that Justin appeals to the " Memoirs by the Apostles " for inci-
dents, like the visit of the Magi, which are recorded by only one apostle,
** shows clearly the utter indefiniteness of this form of expression." \ ** Mani-
festly, that single passage," namely, the one quoted above {Dial, c 103), ** must
be explained in accordance with Justin's general use of language."
Let OS examine these points. As to (i), the supposition that Justin con-
ceived of his •* Memoirs " as ** composed " or " written " — these are the words
he uses — by "the collective body" of the Apostles of Christ and "the col-
lective body " of their companions is a simple absurdity.
(2) and (3). For Justin's purpose, it was important, and it was sufficient, to
represent the " Memoirs " to which he appealed as resting on the authority of
the Apostles. But in one place he has described them more particularly ; and
it is simply reasonable to say that the more general expression should be
interpreted in accordance with the precise description, and not, as Hilgenfeld
strangely contends, the reverse.
*See }m Kriiisckt UnttrsuchungtH Uber die EvangtlUn JusthCs^ dtr cUmtntinUchen
H9maUmumdMtmrci4nis (Halle, 1850), p. 13 ff.
^A dm. Marc. W. a: Constittdmus inprimis evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores
habere. . . . Si et apoetolioos, non tamen solos, sed com apostolis et post apostolos. . . . Denique
■obu fidem ex apoetdia loonnes et Matthxus insinuant, ex apostolids Lucas et Marcoa
iaatanranL
X Hilgenfeld alao refers to Justiii (JDiaL c. loi, p. 328, comp. Apol. i. 38) for a passage relating
to the mocking of Christ at the crucifixion, which Justin, referring to the " Memoirs," describes
"in a form," aa he conceives, " essentially differing from all our canonical Gospels." To me it
appeaia that the agreement is essential, and the difference of slight importance and easily
expfadned ; but to diacaaa the matter here would be out of place, and would carry us too far.
lOO CRITICAL ESSAYS
(3) The fact that Juslm appeals to the " Memoirs by the Apostles " for an
incident which is related by only one Apostle is readily explained by the fact
that he gives this title to the Gospels considered collaiivtiy, just as he once
designates them as tiiayyk\in, "Gospels," and twice as rh rrayyi'f-'iy, "the
Gospel." The usage of the Christian Fathers in quoting is entirely analogous.
They constantly cite passages as contained "in the Gospels " which are found
only in onr Gospel, simply because "the Gospels" was a term used interchange-
ably with " the Gospel," to denote the four Gospels conceived of as one booL
For examples of this use of the plural, see the rote 10 p. 34- To the instances
there given, many might easily be added.
Hilgcnfeld, in support of his view of the article here, cites the language of
Justin where, in speaking of the new birth, he says, "And the reason foi this
we have learned from the Apostles" (,Ap^)L i.6i). Here it seems 10 me not
improbable that Justin had in mind the language of Christ as recorded by the
Apostles John and Matthew in John iii. 6, 7. and Matt, xviii. 3, 4. That he had
na particular Apostles or apostolic writings in view — that by "the Apostles"
he meant vaguely "the collective body of the Apostles" does not appear likely.
The statement must hive been founded on something which he had read
someaikere.
NOTE C, (Seep. 80.)
JUSTIN MARTYR AND TBK "GOSPEl. ACCORDING TO THB HEBREWS."
After remarking that the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" was "almost
nniveraalty regarded in the first centuries as the Hebrew original of our canon-
ical Gospel of St. Matthew," that Greek versions of it " must have existed at a
very early date," and that " at various limes and in different circles it took very
different shapes," Lipsius observes: "The fragments preserved in the Greek
by Epiphanius betray very clearly their dependence on our canonical Gospels.
. ■ ■ The Aramaic fragments also contain much that can be explained and under-
stood only on the hypothesis that it is a recasting of the canonical text. - - .
The narrative of our Lord's baptism (Epiphan. Harr. xxx. 13), with its tkrti/old
voice from heaven, is evidently a more recent combination of older texts, of
which the first is found in the Gospels of St Mark and St. Luke; the second in
the text of the Cambridge Cod. Beta at St. Luke iii. 21. in Justin Martyr [Dial.
c. TryfhoH. 88, toj), and Clemens Alexandrinus (Paiag. i.6,p. 113, Potter);
the third in our canonical Gospel of St. Matthew. And this very narrative may
suffice to prove that the so-called ' Hebrew ' text preserved hy St Jerome is by
no means preferable to that of our canonical Gospel of St. Matthew, and even
less original than the Greek text quoted by Epiphanius."" "The attempt 10
prove that Justin Martyr and the Clementine Homilies had one extra-canonical
• Smith liiidWaee'i £»«:/. */C*r«(«- Jiof. , vol. ii. (iSSoX p. 7"^ Many illii>tr.dtnu an
hen given df Ihc fact that mm) of Ihe quoutioni whkb Ii»e come Aama Id 111 IroDi the " Goipel
oE the Hebrews " bd«i£ \a a Ulcr peiiod, and tepmeaL a later tfage trl ItieaJagical derclop-
■nnl, Ihu oar omonical Cotpela. Mangold ngreet wiih Lipiinl. Sec the note \a hi> edldou ol
Bleek'i SmUiOmg in Ov IV. T., ]■ AuB. (iS/s), p. 131 L Dr. E. A. AbbiHt, m. Gtifth in
Ihe ninlh ed, et the Eocrdapzdul Britannici (t. SiS, note), nkei the lune view. He findi M
■ndence that Jujuia Manyr node u
H Goipel aocording to the Hcbrewi.
A
OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 101
aulhorit7 conunon to them both, either in the Gospti of tkt Hsirtuii ox in the
(hifti ef S. Pttir. . . . haa altogether failed. It ia only in the rarest cases that
they literally agree in their deviations from the text of our Gospels; they differ
iti their citations u much, tor the most part, one from the other as they do from
the lexl of the synoptical evangetists, even in such casta when one or the othei
repeatedly quotes the ^une passage, and each time in the same words. Only in
very few cases is the derivation from the Gotpel ef tki Hebrews probable, as in
the saying concerning the new birlh (Justin M. Apol. i. 6i ; Clem, ffsmilits, il.
*6; RteogH. vi. g); .. . in most cases ... it is quite enough to assume that the
quotations were made from memory, and so account tor the involuntary con-
fusion of evangelic texts." {Ibid. p. 71:.)
Hr. E. B. Nicholson, in his elaborate work on the Gospel according to the
Hebrews (Lond. 1879), comes to the conclusion that "there are no proofs that
Justin used the Gospel according to the Hebrews at all " (p. 135). He also
observes, "There is no reason to suppose that the aulhotship of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews was attributed lo the Apostles generally in the zd or
even the 3d cent. Irencus calls it simply ' that Gospel which is according to
Matthew'" (p. 134).
Holtzmann in the eighth volume of Bunsen's Bibtlwerk (1S66) discusses at
length the subject of apocryphal Gospels. He comes to the conclusion that
the "Gospel of the Hebrews" or "of the Nazarenes" was an Aramaic redac-
tion {Starbiitun^ of our Matthew, executed in an exclusively Jewish-Christian
•pirit, making some use of Jewish-Christian traditions, but presupposing the
Synoptic and the Pauline literature. It was probably made in Palestine for the
Jewish-Christian churches some time in the second century (p. 547), The
Cospc] of the Ebionites, [or our knowledge of which we have to depend almost
wholly on Epiphanius, a very untrustworthy writer, Hollzmann regards as " a
Creek recasting [(/cbtrarbatunji) of the Synoptic Gospels, with peculiar Jewish-
Christian traditions and ihcosophic additions" (p. 553).
Professor Drummond, using Kirchhofer's Qutllimammlung, has compared
the twenty-two fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews there col-
lected (including those oE the Gospel of the Ebionites) with Justin's citations
from ot references lo the Gospels, of which he finds about one hundred and
seventy. 1 give hie result: —
" With an apparent exception to be noticed presently, not one of the Iwenly-
iwo quotations from the lost Gospel is found among these one hundred and
seventy. But this is not all. While thirteen deal with matters not referred to
in Jmtin, nine admit of comparison; and in these nine instances not only does
Justin omit everything that is characteristic of the Hebrew Gospel, but in
some points he distinctly differs from it, and agrees with the canonical Gospels.
There is an apparent exception. Justin quotes the voice from heaven at the
baptism in this form, ' Thou art my son ; this day have I begotten thee.' 'This
day have I begotten ihee' is also in the Ebionite Gospel;* but there it is
awkwardly appended to a second saying, thus: 'Thou art my beloved Son; in
ihce was I well pleased; and again, This day have 1 begotten thee'; — so that
the passage Is quite different from Justin's, and has the appearance of being a
later patchwork. Justin's form of quotation is still the reading of the Codex
■S« E»iplBiU>u, r/^
.: Nkholt
, Tki GoiftI acc,rd!fg .
lOI
CRITICAL ESSAYS
Bezx in Luke, and, according lo Augustine, was found in good MSS., though
it was said not to be in the older ones. (See Tischend. in loco.) • One other
passage is appealed 10. Justin says that, when Jesus wiat dmnt ufen the viaUr,
a fire was kindled in the Jordan,— iri/i owf^iS^ tc r^' "lopdiivi,. The Ebionile
Gospel relates that, when Jesus came vp from the waitr, immedialely a great
light shone round the place,— fi'^t-r nepii%a/iit rim nh-on ^uf /'h^- This fact
is, I believe, the main proof that Justin used the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, and that we may therefore have recourse to it, whenever he differs
verbally from the enisling Gospels. Considering that the events recorded are
not the same, that they are said to have happened at different limes, and that
the two quotations do not agree with one another in a single word, this argu-
ment cannot be considered very convincing, even by those who do not require
perfect verbal accuracy in order to identify a quotation. Bui, further, the
author of the anonymous Liber de Rebaptismate says that this event was
related in an heretical work entitled Fauli Przdicatio, and that it was not
found in any Gospel : 'Item cum biptiiaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum;
quod in evangelio nullo eat scriptum.' (Routh, Rel. Sat v. pp. 335, 326 [c
14, Roulh ; c. 17, Hattel.J) Of course the latter statement may refer only to
the canonical Gospels. "t To this it may be added that a comparison of the
fuller collection of fragments of "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" given
by Hilgenfeid or Nicholson (the latter makes out a list of thirty-three frag-
ments) would be still less favorable lo the supposition that Justin made use of
this Gospel.
In the quotations which I have given from these independent writers, I have
not attempted to set forth in full their views of the relation of the original
Hebrew Gospel lo our Greek Matthew, atill less my own; but enough has been
said to show how little evidence (here is that the "Gospel of the Hebrews"
in one form or another either constituted Justin's " Memoirs." or was the
principal source from which he drew his knowledge of the life of CbrisL
While I find nothing like /ro^that Justin made use of any apocryphal Gospel,
the question whether he may in a few instances have done so is wholly
unimportant. Such a use would not in his case, any more than in that of the
later Fathers, as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, imply that he placed
such a work on a level with our four Gospels.
The notion that Justin used mainly the "Gospel according to Peter," which
ia assumed, absolutely without evidence, to have been a form of the "Gospel
according lo the Hebrews," rests almost wholly on the hypothesis, for which
there is also not a particle of evidence, thai this Gospel was mainly used by Ihe
■ II is the roding alto (in Luke ill, 1,} q( ihe beM KSS. of tt
ol aemcni dI Aleundna, Med
plico, Kiluy Ihe deuon (if ti« i>
Hanjchxan i and Augusliac qiwlE* it oKt wiLfaoL
Apoilolical Canxitudoni (ii. ]>); ic« ihe nolc 1
ihrnlois thai JuBiin found il in fall MS. of Luki
applied Id ChriM in Ihe N.T. <Acn iiiL 331 Hcb. L ji v. ;), iJit
occur IhraoEh conluiicii of inemory, or Itom Iho mrdi tiHving been ha
Tilt.), indFuouoitiu,
> be pRmpp4ned 10 Ibr
. H allogelher probibte
I, ii. 7) being rcpeiledl)'
t r*M/. Rmirm, October, 1 87;, lii
!i [., I
Thewc
V. ,), Ihe .ub>
thamu^aof
The£i'Arr Jr KibaftitmaliU DioaDy pul^
J
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 103
tothor of the Clementine Homilies. The agreement between certain quotations
of Justin and those found in the Clementine Homilies in their variations from
the text of our Gospels is supposed to prove that Justin and Clement drew
from a common source ; namely, this '* Gospel according to Peter/' from which
they are then imagined to have derived the great body of their citations. The
facts stated in the quotation I have given above from Lipsius, who has
expressed himself none too strongly, are enough to show the baselessness of
this hypothesis ; but it may be well to say a few words about the alleged agree-
ment in five quotations between Justin and the Clementines in their variations
from the text of our Gospels. These are all that have been or can be adduced
in argument with the least plausibility. The two most remarkable of them,
namely. Matt. xi. 27 (par. with Luke x. 22) and John iii. 3-5, have already been
fully discussed.* In two of the three remaining cases, an examination of the
various readings in Tischendorf*s last critical edition of the Greek Testament
(1869-72), and of the parallels in the Christian Fathers cited by Semisch and
others, will show at once the utter worthlcssness of the argument, t
The last example alone requires remark. This is Matt. xxv. 41, ''Depart
from me, accursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his
angels." This is quoted by Justin as follows : " Go ye into the outer darkness,
which the Father prepared for Satan and his angels.'* {Dial, c. 76.) The
Clementine Homilies (xix. 2) agrees with Justin, except that it reads "the devil"
for " Satan."
Let us examine the variations from the text of Matthew, and see whether
they justify the conclusion that the quotations were taken from a different
Gospel.
The first b the substitution of i'jrdyerc, which I have rendered "Go ye," for
TTopeieadej translated in the common version "depart" The two words, how-
ever, differ much less, as they are used in Greek, than ^ and depart in English.
The common rendering of both is " go." We have here merely the substitu-
tion of one synonymous word for another, which is very frequent in quotations
from memory. Tischendorf cites for the reading vT:dyzT€ here the Sinaitic MS.
and HiPPOLYTUS {De Antkhr. c 65) ; so Origen on Rom. viii. 38 in Cramer's
Catena (p. 1 56) referred to in the Addenda to Tregelles's Greek Test.; to which
maybe added Didymus {Adv. Manich, c. 13, Migne xxxix. 1104), AsTERius
{Orat, il in Ps. v., Migne xl. 412), Theodoret (In Ps. Ixi. 13, M. Ixxx. 1336),
and Basil of Seleucia {Orat. xl. § 2, M. Ixxxv. 461). Chrysostom in quoting
the passage substitutes aniTSere for iropeiEode eight times {Oj>/>. 1. 27** ed. Montf.;
tS^; V. 256c; xi. 29C; 674'; 695^; xii. 29i»>; 727«); and so Epiphanius once
{Ifar, Ixvi. 80, p. 700), and Pseudo-Caesarius (Dia/, iii. resp. 140, Migne xxxviii.
1061). In the Latin Fathers we find discedite, ite^ abite^ and recedite.
*See, for the former. Note A ; for the latter, p. 3 1 ff.
tThe two cases an («) Matt. xix. 16-18 (par. Mark x. 17 ff. ; Luke xviii. 18 ff.) compared
with Jva/an,DiaL c 101, and Afol. L i6/and Clem. Hem. xriii. i, 3 (comp. iiL 57; xvii. 4).
Here Justin's two quotations differ widely from each other, and neither agrees closely with the
Oementmes. if) Matt. v. 34, 37, compared with Justin, A^l. L 16; Clem. Hom. iii. 55; xix. a;
also James t. is, where see Tischendorf's note. Here the variation is natural, of slight impor-
tance, and paralleled in Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius. On {a) see Semisch, p. 371 ff. ;
Hilce&feld, p. aso ff. ; Westcott, Cafion, p. 153 f . ; on (6) Semisch, p. 375 ^- '* Hilgenfeld, p. 175 L ;
Wcstoott, p. 15a i ; Saoday, p. laa i
IO+ CHFTICAL ESSAYS
The second variation consists in theomiMJonof aitlfimj, " from me," and (oi)
taT/ipa/iii;,, " {jn) Bccurscd." This is of no account whatever, being a nati;ral
abridgment of the quotation, and very common in the cilationa of the passage
by (he Fathers ; Chrysostom, for example, omits the "from me" fifteen times,
the "accursed" thirteen times, and both together ten times {Off. L 103^; v.
•9'"! 473"! vii.ige-i s?!*! viiLjse*! 11.679"; 709°i '^ 13S'')- The omission
is still more frequent in the very numerous quotations of Augustine.
The third and most remarkable variation is the substitution of rS ojuiror r*
iiiiTtpav, "the outer darkness," or "the darkness wilhoul." for ri irtp rt
aiiiviov, " the eternal fire." The critical editors give no various reading here in
addition to the quotations of Justin and the Clementines, eicept that of the
cursive MS, No. 40 (collated by Welslein), which has, as first written, rt jri/) ™
(f irrpoir, " the oBttf fire," for "ihselemal fire," It has not been observed, I
believe, that this singular reading appears in a quotation of the passage by
Chrysostom {Ad Thtedor. lafium, i. 9), according to the text of Morel's edition,
supported by at least two MSS. {See Montfaucon's note in his edition of
Chrysost. Ofp- i. 11.) This, as the more difiicult reading, may be the true one,
though Savile and Montfaucon adopt instead a'liivior, "eternal," aa the authority
of four MSS.* But it docs not appear to have been noticed that Chrysostom
in two quotations of this passage substitutes the "outer darkness" for "the
eternal fire." So De I'irg. c 24, 0pp. i. 285 {345)', iTl?.eni yip, fialv, ott* efioi
tit ri axiroc ^ i£i-Ttpuv ro t/nH/uui/iliitiv n. r. A. Again, Dt PaniL vii, 6, 0pp. ii
339 (399)^ 'opficeBc, ul mTiii>aii(voi, rif rh aiiiroq rfl rliirrptiv K. T. ^. We find the
same reading in Basil the Great, //ptn. in Ziu. lii. t8, Opp. ii. 50 (70)* j in
Theodore or Mopsuestia in a Syriac translation {FragmeMa Syriaca, ed.
E. Sachau, Lips. 1S69, p. i:. or p. 19 of the Syriac), " discedite a me in tentbrat
txttriaret qua; paratK sunt diabolo ejusque angelis"j in Theodoret (/« Pi.
UL 13, Uigne Imj. 1336), who quotes the passage in connection with vv. 32-34
as follows; "Go ye (uirdjtir) into the outer darkneis, where is the loud crying
and gnashing of teeth"; t in Basil of Sbleucia substantially (Orif, xl. 5 2, H.
Ixxxv. 461). iVii^fri (ic ri o«Jro( ri ! f u, Td ifroi/iao^/fwvi' «, r. ?.,, and in
"Simeon Cionita," i>. Symeon Stylites the younger (Scrm. xxi. c 2, in Mai'i
Neva Palrtim Bibliolk. tom. viii. (1871), pars iiL p. 104), " Depart, ye accursed,
into the tmier darhntit ; there shall lie the wailing and gnashing of teeth."]
Compare SuLPicius Sevbrus, Epitl. i. ad Sorortm, c 7; "Ite in Imebrat
txterioTcs, ubi erit Actus et stridor detitium" (Migne xx. 227'). See also
Antonius Magnus, Abbas, Efisl. xx. (Migne, Palrol, Gr. xl, 1058), "Rteedite
a me, maledicti, in ignem xtemum, abi est Selus ct stridor dentium."
The use of the expression "the outer darkness" in Matt. viii. 12, xxiL l^
and et'pecially ixv. 30, in connection with "the wailing and gnashing of teeth,"
and the combination of the latter also with "the furnace of fire" in Matt. xiiL
41, 50, would naturally lead to such a confusion and intermixture of different
passages in quoting from memory, or quoting freely, as we see in these
* Sina Ihe above urn writtn, I have uHind lUi res^ng Id Ephium Sjpnu, O/ft. Cr. &.
uS b, ropelieade afr* i/uA rrivTtf al utiritfiafih/ti: fif Tit rriip rb i^£jTtpav ; am^ ^ ^xAt
bdow, trap, ut' Ifirni o\ Han/papiinH ti^ ri ~''P ^^ ri^rtpov Hal niuviov, rA i}nM/«Mifi/tw*
T^ 6ta&ih^ not Toif ayylXoi( avraii. — IHd. p. I'Sa. Bui on pp. t^, xjf, 178, |Bi, «■,
Ephnem quoto the puiigi u it lundi b Iba tnln riirflia. Sec llie FhiHpiKii Solituiiu,
Dirfira Sri CAriaimar, It, id (UE(iie, fmtnl. Gr. curiL Itj, be); "Alula ■ me piocill,
IThi lui eioiue reid> AiTfiii li jipvyi&i aai i iAa'Aifj/ibc tuv liivvruii, buiili«w«d«
Bpfyfii^ vkI nAnXr^/jfic Kent In have been traoqioKd through (he nuilake of a Kribe-
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL I05
examples. Semisch quotes a passage from Clement of Alexandria {Quts dives^
etc, c 15, p. 942), in which Jesus is represented as threatening " fire and the
outer darkness ** to those who should not feed the hungry, etc. Cjrril of Alex-
andria associates the two thus : " What darkness shall fall upon them . . . when
he shall say, Depart from me, ye accursed, into the eternal fire^^ etc {Horn. div.
Opp. V. pars ii. b, p. 408 f.* The fire was conceived of as burning without
light In the case of Justin there was a particular reason for the confusion of
the "fire" and the "outer darkness" from the fact that he had just before
quoted Matt viii. 12, as well as the fact that " the outer darkness " is mentioned
likewise in the same chapter of Matthew (xxv. 30) from which his quotation is
derived {Dial, c 76).
Justin's substitution of " Satan " for " the devil " is obviously unimportant It
occurs in the Jerusalem Syriac and iEthiopic versions, and was natural in the
dialogue with Trypho the Jew,
The remaining coincidence between Justin and the Clementines in their
variation from Matthew' consists in the substitution of h rjToiimoEv 6 nar^pj
" which the Father prepared " (comp. ver. 34), for ro ijToifiaafikvov^ " which is [or
hath been] prepared." This is of no weight, as it is merely an early various
reading which Justin doubtless found in his text of Matthew. It still appears,
usually as "»i^ Father" for " M^ Father," in important ancient authorities, as
the Co€lex Beza (D), the valuable cursives i. and 22., the principal MSS. of the
Old Latin version or versions (second century), in iRENiCUS four or five times
("pater," Har, iL 7. § 3; "pater mens," iii. 23. § 3; iv. 33- § 11 ; 40. § 2;
V. 27. § I, alius.), Origen in an old Latin version four times (Opp. i. 87b,
allusion ; iL 177'; 298'* ; iii. 885*), Cyprian three times, Juvencus, Hilary
three times, Gaudentius once, Augustine, Leo Magnus, and the author of
De Promissis, — for the references to these, see Sabatier; also in Philastrius
{Har, 114), SULPICIUS Severus (Ep, ii. ad Sororem, c. 7, Migne xx. 231c),
Fastidius (De Vil. Chr. cc 10, 13, M. 1. 393, 399), Evagrius presbyter {Con-
suit, etc iii. 9, M. xx. 1164), Salvian {Adv, Avar, ii. 11 ; x. 4; M. liii. 201, 251),
and other Latin Fathers — but the reader shall be spared. — Clement of Alex-
andria in an allusion to this passage {Cohort, c 9, p. 69) has "which the Lord
prepared"; Origen {Lat^ reads six times "which 6^^?^ prepared " {Opp, ii. i6i«;
346^; 4x6*; 431**; 466**; and iv. b. p. 48% ap. Pamphili Apol.) ; and we find the
same reading in TertuUian, Gaudentius, Jerome {In Isa,\, 11), and Paulinus
Nolanus. Aldmus Avitus has Deus Pater, — Hippolytus {De Antkhr, c. 65)
adds " which my Father prepared " to the ordinary text.
It is clear, I think, from the facts which have been presented, that there is no
ground for the conclusion that Justin has here quoted an apocryphal Gospel.
His variations from the conmion text of Matthew are easily explained, and we
find them all in the quotations of the later Christian Fathers.
In the exhibition of the various readings of this passage, I have ventured to
go a little beyond what was absolutely necessary for my immediate purpose,
partly because the critical editions of the Greek Testament represent the
patristic authorities so incompletely, but principally because it seemed desirable
to expose still more fully the false assumption of Supernatural Religion and
other writers in their reasoning about the quotations of Justin.
But to return to our main topic. We have seen that there is no direct evi-
*Coiiip. Ephnicm Syms, D^Jttdieia, Opp. Gr. iiu noaef: omv an&ro^ Innriaerai kif
airrovi brop Xd^^aei rrpbc airrovc iv bpyy avToify Kal iv rt^ Oi'fi^ avrov vrard^ei avTovc
>i7W, iwy>e(«o*«.r.A. (a»»»tho received tcxtjb SoiiL97*.
Io6 CRITICAL ESSAYS
dence of any weight that Justin used either the " Gospel according to the
Hebrews" (so far as this was distinguished from the Gospel according to
Matthew) or the "Gospel according to Peter." That he should have taken
either of these as the source of his quotations, or that either of these constituted
the " Memoirs " read generally in public worship in the Christian churches of
his time, is in the highest degree improbable. The " Gospel according to the
Hebrews " was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites or Jewish Chris-
tians; and neither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were
Ebionites. The "Gospel according to Peter" favored the opinions of the
Docetae ; but neither Justin nor the generality of Christians were Docetists.
Still less can be said in behalf of the hypothesis that any other apocryphal
" Gospel " of which we know anything constituted the " Memoirs " which he
cites, if they were one book, or was included among them, if they were several.
We must, then, either admit that Justin's " Memoirs " were our four Gospels,
a supposition which, I believe, fully explains all the phenomena, or resort to
Thoma's hypothesis of an "X-Gospel," />., a Gospel of which we know
nothing. The only conditions which this " X-Gospel " will then have to fulfil
will be : It must have contained an account of the life and teaching of Christ
which Justin and the Christians of his time believed to have been "composed
by the Apostles and their companions " ; it must have been received accord-
ingly as a sacred book, of the highest authority, read in churches on the Lord's
day with the writings of the Old Testament prophets ; and, almost immediately
after he wrote, it must have mysteriously disappeared and fallen into oblivion,
leaving no trace behind.*
* Compare Norton, Gtnuingfuss of the Gosptlst ist mL (1837), vol. L pp. 235-330; ad edL,
i. 331 f.
I. INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS.
Abbas, 104.
Abbott, Dr. E. A., a6, 44, 70, 100.
Acts, io» 1 1 : not oontradicted by Ep. to Gal.,ia
Africanaa^ Julius, 75.
Anippa Castor, tt6, 87.
Akimos Aritus, 105.
Alexandria, 15.
Alford, 37, S3« 67.
Aloci, 20, as, 79.
Ambrose, 50, 85.
Ammonins, 55, 56.
Anastastos, 38, 39, 40, 59.
Anijer, 33.
Antiodi, Synod of, 96.
Antoninus IHus, X2.
Antoninus, see Marcus.
Antonius Magnus, 104.
Apelles, 83.
Aphraates, 55.
Aphihooins, 55.
Apocalypse, fp, 15, so, 67, 77, 79.
Apocalypse of Peter, 28-30.
Apocrypnal Books, m# Gospels, Apocryphal.
ApoUinaris, 59.
Apologists, 67, 71, 78.
Apostolic Constitutions, 24, 34, 39, 40, 47, 78,
loa.
Apostolic Memoirs, 32>as, >8*
Arcbelaus, 86.
Aristides, 64.
Arnold, Matthew, 10, 60, 61, 88, 89.
Artemidorus, 36.
AsteriuS| 103.
Athanasius, 34, 97; Pseud-, 4a
Athena|;oras, 17, 60.
Aogus'me, 4O1 Vh 75. »<»» «<M. «o5-
Autolycus, 6a
avaytwdciy 3«. 35-38, 44.
avudtv^ l», 36, 37» 39-
arroftvTffiovei'fuiTa^ as, 33.
aTTocyriAAw, 49«
Baptism, 31, 43» 44» 50.
Bar-BahluT, 56.
Bar-HelMTZus, 56.
Barnabas, Epistle of, 17, 38, 39, 37.
Bar-Salibi, 55-57.
Basil the Ureat, 34, 104.
Basil of Sekuda, 35, 40, 103, 104.
Basil. Pscudo<, 34, 37.
Basiiides, 18, 53, 83, 85-89.
Basilidians, 75, 84.
BSIumlein, 69.
Banr, o, 10, i3-i5» «»i 8a, 89.
Bengel, 37, 69.
BentJey, 7$.
Beyichlag,^.
37*
Bindemann, st, 80.
Birth, New, 31, 3a, 36, 37, 43, 43, 53, 63.
Bleek, 13, «, 84.
Bretschneider, 37.
Brieger, 89.
Browne, 75.
Briickner, 69.
Budxus, 37.
Bunsen, 89.
Calvin, 37.
Carpenter, 75.
Caspari, 22.
Celsus, 60.
Censorinus, 56.
Cerinthus, 20.
Charteris, 56.
Christ, 45, 50, 53, 53, 63-65, 79. 86 ; pre-exisi-
ence of, 45, 66 ; the Son of God, 45 ; his
manner of teaching, 63-65; length of his
ministry, 59, 75.
Chnstian Examiner, 12, 23.
Christianity, 9, 10.
Chromatius, 4a
Chrysostom, 35-38, 40, 64, 103, 104.
Clausen, 37.
Clement ot Alexandria, 15, 23, 24, 29, 30, 35,
40, 44, 62, 70, 75, 78, 86, 87. 96, xoo, 102, 105.
Clement of Kome.^o; Ep. of, 17, 28, 29, 44.
Clementine Homilies, 17, 33, 36, 38-39, 44> 57»
61, 63, 75, 95, 100, 103-105.
Qementine Epitome, 36, 38, 39.
Codex Bezae, 101, 102, 105.
Codex Ottobonianus, 61 .
Codex Sinaiticus^ 29, 93, 103.
Codex Veronensis, 50.
Commodus, 60.
Common Prayer, Book of, 43.
Cook, F. C, 45-
Cramer, 103.
Credner, 48, 51, 53, 56, 80, 94, 98.
Cremer, 37.
Cureton, 55.
Cypnrian, 38, 78, 102, 105 ; Pseudo-, 75.
Cyril of Alexandria, 37, 39, 75, 105.
Cyril of Jerusalem, 34.
Danibl, 56.
Davidson, 48, 64, 66, 74, 75, 83.
Delitzsch, 44.
Demiurgus, 85.
De Wette, 13, 33, 37.
Diapente, 56.
Diatessaron, see Tatian.
Didymus of Alexandria, 41, 97, 103.
Dindorf, 62
Diognetus, Epistle to, 90.
Dionysius of Corinth, 29.
Dispute between Archelaus and Manes, 86.
io8
CRITICAL ESSAYS.
Docetae, Docetist, Docetists, 34, 39, 80, 81, 106.
Dodd, a6.
Donaldson, 10.
Drummond, 36, 44-52* 64, 6$, 101.
EASTBRy la, 13, 91.
Ebionites, 66, 81, 101, 103, 106.
Egypt, 68.
Eichbom, ai.
Klias Salamensis, 55.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, a6, 44, ^^)^ 100.
Engelhardt, aa, 43, 73.
Epnesus, 91, 9a.
Ephraem Syrus, 34, 39, 40, 55-57. 75. »o4, 105.
Epiphanius, 54, 56, 6a, 86. 97, 100, loi, 103.
Epistles, Disputed, 15, ao.
Eucharist, 49.
EusebiuR, a3, 39, 30, 34, 38, 39, 54, 56, 59, 67,
71, 86, 90.
Euthymius Zigabenus, 37, 40.
Ewald^ 40, 53.
eip^/nevor, rd, 54-
f fa;7'f Aiov, a4, 86, 87, 100.
Farrar, 37.
Kastidius, 105.
Faustua, loa.
Fisher, 11, 14; see Supernatural Religion.
Florinus, 14.
Fortnightly Review, ai.
Galsn, ^7.
Gaudentius, 75, 105.
Gieseler, 13.
Gnostics, 14, 15, i8-ai, 30, 57, 6a, 63, 8a, 84,
85, 89-91,96.
Godet, 9, 37j 87, 93.
Gospel: Ebionite, loi, loa ; Marcion's, at 4 of
Marcosians, 94; of Nicoidemus, 18; accord-
ing to Hebrews, 18, 33, 56, 77, 79-81, 100, loi,
loa, 106; according to Peter, 77, 79, 80, 98;
according to Basilides, 85-89 ; X, 106; name,
how applied, 18, 87.
Gospel, Fourth: autnorship of, 14, 15; date of,
ia-14, 19, ao,a7; how received, 9, la, 13, 15,
i6,ao, ai, a7, 30, 41 ; anti-JudaiC, 10; use of ,
by Justin, 15, 30, 65; by Gnostics, 15, ao, ai,
30, 88, 89; remarks appended to, 15, 91, 92.
Gospels, Four : where tound, 15,20; deemed
authoritative, 24; Sunday use of, 23, 27;
meaning not changed by Justin, a6, 30-32 ;
why not quoted by namei 17; inaccurately
quoted, 18.
Gospels, Synoptic, 14, 65, 71, 73, 74.
Gospels, Apocryphal, 85, 88, 106; not history
of Christ's ministry, 18 ; not authorized, 29.
Grabe, 6a.
Gregor>', Dr. C. R., 13.
Gregory Nyssen, 34.
Grimm, Prof. Wihbald, la, 33, 37, 47, 51.
Grotius, 37, 69.
Hades, 18.
Hadrian, 8a.
Hammond, 71.
Hamack, aa.
Harpocration, 37.
Hase, 13, 89.
Hausrath, 9.
Hebrews, Gospel according to the, see Gospel.
Hengstenberg, 37.
Heracleon, 63, 84, 85.
Heraclitus, 45.
Hermas, 17, a8, 39.
Hermias, 17.
Herodes Atticus, 64.
Hesychius, 38, 40.
Heterography, 56.
Hilarianos, 75.
Hilary, loa.
Hilgcnfcld, 9, 13, 14, 21, a6, 30, 34, 47. 5«-53.
56, 61, 65, 73, 74, 80, 81, 83, 87, 89, 94, 99,
loa, 103.
Hippocrates, 37.
Hippolytus, 18, 34, 34, 39. 79. 83, 85-89, 91,
103, X05.
Hofmann, 37.
Holtzmann, loi.
Hort, 53, 53, 86, 89.
Hutton, 69.
Ignatius, 17, 90.
Irenseus, 14, 15, ao, ai, as, 34, a7, aS, 30, 34,
38, 39, 44, 46. 50, 54, 57, 58, 63, 81, 8a, 94,
95, 98, 101, 105.
Jacobi, 89.
James, 10, aa.
ferome, 33, 30, 85, 100, 103, 105.
[esus Chnst, see Christ.
[ohn, 14, 15, 17, 30-33, 3«-3S, 35, 37-39,43-
45, 47-55, 58-65, 66, 68, 70, 73, 77, 78, 8a-
89, 91^ 93, too, 103 ; relation of to Jewish
Cfhristianity, 9, 10, 13.
John the Baptist, 53, 65.
Jordan, loa.
Josephus, 37.
Jowett, 13.
Jude, 15, 35.
Justin, 13-15, 17, 18, 33-35, 37-39, 4«, 43"
54, 57, 58, 63-^, 70-74, T^a, 87, 93, 94,
98-104, 106; his view of Chnst, 38.
Juvencus, loa, 105.
KwB, 73.
Keim, 9-11, 13, 14, 36, 33, 48, 50,60.
Kidder, 69.
Kirchhofer, 86.
Knapp, 37.
Krebs, 37.
Kype, 37.
Kadi^u, 5*-
Lachmann, 53.
Lactantius, 60, 71, 75, loa.
Lagarde, 40.
I^rdner, 23.
Lazarus, 86.
Le Clerc, 69.
Lenfant, 69.
Liddell and Scott, 48.
Lightfoot, Bp., 9, II, 39, 33, 54-56, S9f 60, 81,
85j 90.
Lipsius, 10, 56, 57, 80. 81, 86, 89, 94. 100, 103.
Logos, 30, 38, 43-46, 53, 58, 60, 65, 67.
Lord's Day, see Sunday.
Lord's Supper, 13 ; see Eucharirt.
LUcke, 13, 37, 50-
Luke, 19, 21, 22, 34, 66, 73, 77, 83-84, 86, 87,
97, 99; Homilies on, 85.
Luthardt, 9, 13, 37, 84, 87.
Luther, 37.
Liiuelberger, 14, 73.
Lyons, 15, 59, 60.
A<$yof , see Logos.
MACARIUS il^GVPTIUS, 34.
McClellan, 37.
Magi, 25, 99.
Mangold, 50, 84, 100.
Mann, N., 75.
Mansel, 89.
Manuscript, etc., see Codex, etc
Marcion, 31, 81-85, 94.
Mardonites, 21, 81, 84.
NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS
109
Marmdant, 94, 98.
Marcos Anrelius, 60.
Mark, 17, 19, 33, 66, 71, 78, 81, 83, 99.
Mary Magdalene, 61.
Matthxt, at.
Matthew, 17-19, 59, 66, 70-71, 77, 78, 82, 97,
100, 103-ios.
MeHto, 58, 59.
Meaaiah, 32.
Methodiua, 30, loa.
Merer, 12, 37, 71, 74.
MuleDDium, 67, 77.
M oiler, 89.
Moesioger, 55, 57.
Montfaacon, 104.
Morel, 104.
Mount, Sermon on, 64, 6$.
Muratorian Canon, 16, 24, 29, 30, 60.
fwwoyn^, 46.
Nbakobx, 37.
Nkbolaon, 101, 102.
Nioodcmus, 32, 37, 43 ; Gospel of, 18.
Nonnos, 37.
Norton, 12, 16, 18-20, 25-28, 33, 34, 37, 5a, 56,
60, 67, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 92, 94, 98,
106.
No]res,37.
Odo, 40.
Oedoad, 62.
Ouhaosen, 37.
Oi>lutes, 82, S4, 89.
Ongen, 23-25, 37, 39» 54. 60, 61, 75, 80, 83, 85,
97, 102, 103.
Oito, 47. 48, 5o»5»i 74.
Papias, 23 ; oaes John's First Epistle, 89, 90.
Paschal Controversy, 12.
Paaaow, 48.
Panlf 65 ; opposed by other Apostles, 10-12.
Panlmus Nolanus, 105.
Pentatench, 72.
Peiatae, 89.
Peahito, 15, 37. 57-
Peter, 10, 15, 22, 23. 28, 33. 37» 47. 7^ 77» 83,
loa, io3t 106; Epistles of, 15, 37, 82.
Pfleiderer, 10.
Philastrins, 105.
PhiHppians, i^.
PbiUppos Sohtarios, 104.
PhOhpa, 55.
Pnilo, 43. 44. 56.
Philoaophamena, 88.
Pbaloac^y, 44*
Phikatratua, 64.
Photiua,38.
Plato, 51.
Plutaroi, 56.
Polenx>, 64.
Polycarp, 17, 90.
Pratten, (5.
Presaenae, 89.
PrJCTtley, :rj'
Prooopms Gaz^ras, 38.
Prophets, 23.
Ptalms, 45, 46, 72.
Ptolemy, 62, 84, 85.
Tjyp^. 47. 48.
^<7ff«, 85.
QvAKTODSaMANS, 12, 63.
RbKAM , 9, 14, 22.
Repository, Am. Bib., 71,
Resurrection , 58, 67.
Revelation, ue Apocalypse.
Riggenbacn, 13, 47.
Ritschl, 21.
Robinson, E., 37.
Robinson, T., 32.
Rdnsch, 50.
Romans, 54.
Routh, 59, 60.
Rufinus, 56, 83.
Sabbath, 53.
Salvian, 105.
Sanday, Dr , 21, 26, 33, 34, 51, 62, 69, 70, 94,
103.
SaviUe, 104.
Schenkel, 10, 11, 14.
Schmidt, 13.
Scholten, 9, 13, 14, 61, 73, 83, 89.
Schttrer, 12, 13.
Schwesler, 10, 13.
Secundus, 85.
Semisch, 23, 26, 30, 34, 47, 50, 51, 56, 76, 78,
80, 94, 98. 103, X05.
Semier, 21.
Serapion, 80.
Simeon Cionita, 104.
Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian
Biography, 36, 56, 57, 67, 80, 81, 86, 89, 100.
Socrates, 26, 45.
Sophodes, 48.
Soter, 28, 29.
Sozomen, 30.
Spaeth, 73.
Steitz, 13, 74.
Stephen, Henry, 37.
Strauss, 14.
Stuart, 72.
Sulpiaus Severus, 104, 105.
Sunday, 23, 27, 29.
" Supematund Religion," 17, 19, 21, 22, 25-
30, 34, 4', 4a, 56, 61, 63, 67, 70, 71, 74-80,
93-98, 105.
Symeon Stylites, the younger, 104.
Tatian, 17, 54-58, 63, 80, 8a, 96.
Tayler, J. J., 64.
Taylor, Jeremy, 36, 41.
TertuUian, 15, 23, 24, 38, 40, 50, 53, 70, 75,
76, 83-85, 99, 105.
Theodore, 104.
Theodoret, 35, 40, 54, 81, 103, 104.
Theodorus, 40-
Theodotus, 67.
Theological Review, 36, 44. 45, 53. »oz-
Theophilus, 17, 24, 44, 60, 70.
Theophylact, 37.
Tholuck, 37.
Thoma, 46, 47, 5», 65, 67. 68, 73-75, »o6.
Tischendorf, 38, 47, 56, 87, 93, 103.
Tregelles, 53.
Trypho, 17, 22, 24, 47, 66, 67, 71, 72, 77, 78,
10^.
Tubingen, 9-11, 41, 52.
Ubltzbn, 40.
Uhlhom, 89.
Valbntinians, 21, 62, 75, 84; used John's
Gospel, 62, 84.
Valentinus, 53, 62, 82, 84, 85.
Van Goens, 75, 76.
Victor, 56.
videri, use of, 83, 84.
Vienne, 59, 60.
Vitnnga, 69.
Vitruvius, 56.
no CRITICAL ESSAYS
Volkmar (Volcknur), at, a6, 3a, 54, 61, 66, 81, Wetstein, 3a, 37, 69, 104.
8S. 89» 94. Whitby, 6a.
Wiadom of Solomon, 37.
Waddington, aa. Wansche, 3a.
Wahl, 37.
Watkins, 37. Xsnophon, aa.
Weias, 9, 69.
Weitzel, 13. Zacagni, 56.
Weizs^cker, 10, 71, 79, 89. Zahn, 15.
Westcott, a6, 33, 34, S7, 45, 5«» 53, 60, 67, 89, Zechariah, 48, 68.
9h 94> 98* Zeller, 10, 13, ao, 31, 54.
II. INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES.
[N.B.— For referencet of a general character, see the names of the BibUcal writerSi Mount,
Sermon on the, etc, in the precedmg index.]
Gbitssis: iL i6, 17, 51
xlix. 11^^ 50, S3
Exodus : xii. 46, 69
NuMBSRs: ix. la, 69
Dkutbronomy: xxx. 15, i9t .... 51
Psalms: ii. 7, loa
xxii. ao, 21, 45, 46
xxxiv. ao, 69
I-iAiAH: i. la, 83
XXXV. 5, 48
Iriii. a, 5a
i«- a. • :. 75
Zrchariah: xn. 10, 48,68
Wisdom op Solomon: xix. 6, . . . . 37
Matthbw: Las, 57
ii. 16, 70) 71
iii. 14, 40
iu. 16, 50
>▼. « 7a
▼.a8, 44*46^ 70
▼:34»37. »03
▼h 3» 70
▼u. a9, 65
viii. 10, 57
TtiL la, 104, 105
»«• 34, S«
^,*7* U» 47i S7i 93-98. 103
xiii. 17, 98
xiii. 4a, 50, 104
xvi. 16, 47
xriL 1-8, 7a
xviii. 3. .... 3»-33, 35, 39, 43, »«<>
xvui. 4, 100
xix. 16-18, 58, 103
xxi. a3, 61
xxii. 13, 104
30, 104, 105
34, 105
4», 103-105
«vi.4a, 37
xaETii. a, 51
xxrii. 11-14, 76
"TO-49, 56
xxm. 51 36
xxrii. 63, 51
xxriti. 19, 33
Mark : ix. a-8, 7a
X. 17, fL, 103
»▼• « 5«
^▼:«-5. 76
XTL 9, 61
Lvkb: l 3, 36
iii. aa, too, loa
?▼• «9» 75
>T:3a, 65
▼u. 4a, . 56
ix. a8r36, 7a
«- M. *4, 93-98, 103
zna. 18a ff., 103
Lukb: xxii. 44, 58,99
xxiii. 7, 51
xxiv. 4, a3, 61
«iv. 39 58
John: l i, 58
i. «-3, 44, 54, 55, 57, 70
J- »-5» • 5«
1. 3 57, 60, 6a
»• 4, H5, 57
»■ 5, • • 45, 54
»• 9, H5, 88
t. >3, 37, SO
J. X4 44, 45, 58, 6a
:• >8 45, 6a
>. 20, a3, 47
». 3*, 33, SO
» 3H, 34, 101
ii. 4, 88
ii- «3 59
u. 18, 61
iji- 3-5, 3»-43, 103
lu. 6, 100
Hi- 7 3«, 100
m. 13, 58
iii- Ml «5, 49
H!- "6, 18 45
Hi- >7, 49
>»»3, 77
lu. a8, 47
iii- 31, 37
>v. a4, 49i 5«, 54
▼. «. 59
▼• «7, 5a
▼: 19, 30, 49
VI- 4, 59, 75
^:5»-56, 49
vij. 8 58
vii. la 51
vii. 16, 49
▼Ii", a3, 5a
ra. 26, 46, 65
viii. la, 61
▼»}?• 19, 47
▼HV*8, a9, 48,49
viiL 58, 66
«• I, 47, 48
IX. 1-3, 61
ix. 5, 61
X- 8, 58, 85
X. 9, 10, 6a
». 18, 49
X. a3, a4, 61
X. 37, 6a
X. 30, 38, 60
xi. as, a6, 58
»: 55 59
xii. 46 61
xii. 49, 50, 49
xiv. 6, 5<, 61
112
CRITICAL ESSAYS
John : xiv. 9, 58
xiv. 10, II, 60
xiv. 16, 17, 60
XV. 13, 60
«▼»• a 59
*^: 3. 47
XVII. 22, 60
xviii. 12, 51
xviii. 24, 51
xviii. 37, 48
xix. II, 37
xix. 13. Sa
xix. a8, 61
xix. 33, 65
xix. 34, 59, 61
xix. 37, 48, 68
XX. 12, 61
XX. 25, 27 58, 61
xxi. 16, 37
xxi. 23-25, 91-93
Acts: 1. i, 26
ii. 16, 54
ii. 23, 68
»:.?9. 68
XM».S3f «M
Romans: iv. 18, 54
I Corinthians : xv. 29, 38
Galatians: ii. 9, 14, 83
- »^-9, 37
Ephbsians: 11. 18, 51
iii. 4, 5. • • .-. 85
I Thbssalonians : u. 14, 35
„ ^- >5. : a4
Hbbrsws : l 4, 34i loi
1-5 ««»
V. 5. «<»
VM. 25, 51
Jambs : v. 12, 103
I Pbtbr : i. 3, 37
!:«3 37
".a, 37
I John: iii. i^ 53
iii. 16, 60
Judb: i. 17, as
Kbvrlation: i. 7, 48
J: »7. 67
ii. 8, 67
ii. a3, 67
iii. 14, 67
II.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN aWiu and i,^iu*
[From the North Atntrican Review, January, 1872 ]
The treatise of Archbishop Trench on the Synonyms of
the New Testament first appeared in 1854, and was at once
republished in this country. After passing through five
editions, it was followed in 1863 by a "Second Part," like-
wise reprinted in New York in 1864. The two parts were
published in one volume in 1865 ; and now the seventh
edition, "revised and enlarged,*' attests the well-merited
favor with which the work has been received. The Preface
to this new edition is much enlarged, and contains some ex-
cellent observations on the value of the study of synonyms,
and on the method in which it should be pursued. Other
parts of the book bear marks of the careful revision which
it has undergone. The amount of new matter, however, is
not very large. Sections xlix., 1., Ixviii., xcii.-xcvi., xcviii.,
xcix., and part of section c, are new, as compared with the
first and third editions, reprinted in this country ; section
xlix. of the third edition has been cancelled. In sections
ix., xix., xxii., Ixxxiv. (= xxxiv. of Part II.), the synonyms
ot«rj7c, tvrpo-xii, aprnoq^ and luuio^ are added.
I do not propose to enter upon a general review of a work
which is universally recognized as the best on the subject
of which it treats. It is enriched with observations gath-
ered from a wide range of reading, and is full of acute re-
marks and fruitful suggestions ; but the ingenious author
has not elaborated all its parts with equal care, and in some
cases his distinctions appear to be strikingly at variance
"* A Critical Notice of Symoi^ms of the New Testament. By Richard Chenevix Trench,
D.D., ArdiWahop of Dublin. Seventh Edition, revised and enlarged. London : Macmi.lan &
Co. 1871. 8vo. pp. xzvi, 363. [A ninth edition appeared in i83o, but essentially unchanged in
iu treatflaent of tb* two word* h«re discussed.]
114 CRITICAL ESSAYS
with the actual usage of the words which he undertakes to
discriminate. One example of this kind, involving questions
of considerable theological interest, particularly deserves to
be pointed out, as the statements of the Archbishop have
been incautiously adopted by several respectable scholars
both in England and Germany, and are likely to be received
without question by the generality of readers. I refer to
his distinction between the words atreu and ifjiordu^ discussed
in section xl. of his work. He says : —
The distinction between the words is this. AJr^w, the Latin ** peto,"
is more submissive and suppliant, indeed the constant word for the
seeking of the inferior from the superior (Acts xii. 20) ; of the beggar
from him that should give alms (Acts iii. 2); of the child from the
parent (Matt. vii. 9; Luke xi. 11; Lam. i v. 4); of the subject from the
ruler (Ezra vifi. 22); of man from God(i Kin. iii. 11 ; Matt. vii. 7 ; James
i. 5; I John iii. 22; cf. Plato, Euthyph, 14: t\}xtG^ai\iariv\ curuv tov",
Beov^). 'Epurao), On the Other hand, is the Latin "rogo"; or sometimes
(as John xvi. 23 ; cf. Gen. xliv. 19) " interrogo," its only meaning in clas-
sical Greek, where it never signifies to ask, but only " to interrogate,"
or "to inquire." Like ** rogare,"* it implies that he who asks stands on
a certain footing of equality with him from whom the boon is asked, as
king with king (Luke xiv. 32), or, if not of equality, on such a footing
of familiarity as lends authority to the request.
Thus it is very noteworthy, and witnesses for the singular accuracy
in the employment of words, and in the record of that employment,
which prevails throughout the New Testament, that our Lord never uses
air€iv or aiTEia^iaL of himself, in respect of that which he seeks on behalf
of his disciples from God ; for his is not i\i^ petition of the creature to
the Creator, but the request of the Son to the Father. The conscious-
ness of his equal dignity, of his potent and prevailing intercession,
speaks out in this, that often as he asks, or declares that he will ask,
anything of the Father, it is always epurd, epur/'/au^ an asking, that is,
as upon equal terms (John xiv. 16; xvi. 26; xvii. 9, 15, 20), never aiTtu
or (urr/ou). — SynonvmSj etc., pp. 136, 137.
The view here presented by Archbishop Trench, which is,
I believe, original, so far as his account of tnurdu is con-
cerned, has been substantially adopted by Dusterdieck in
his commentary on i John v. 16 (Die drcijoJuifL Brief e^ II.
417), by Wordsworth (Greek Test.) on John xvi. 23 and I
• " Thus Cicero i^Planc. x. 2$) : ' Xeque eaim ego sic rog^bum^ ui pttert vidcrcr, quia iamil-
iaris essct meus.' *'
otrcia AND cpayroA) 115
John V. 16, by Lightfoot on Phil. iv. 3, and by Webster and
Wilkinson, Alford, and Braune in Lange's Bibelwerk^ in
their notes on i John v. 16. Braune says, without qualifica-
tion, ** ipiJTav is = rogare, and implies equality on the part of
the asker with him from whom the favor is sought '* (p. 171,
Amer. transl.).
In opposition to these assertions, I shall endeavor to show
that there is in the word iporau no implication of equality
on the part of the asker with him from whom the favor is
sought, any more than there is in the English word ask ;
that there is not only no ground whatever for connecting
such a notion with the word, but that its common use is
totally inconsistent with this assumption.
The materials for forming a judgment upon this matter
fortunately lie within a small compass. The use of f/xjrdw
in the sense of to request, as Archbishop Trench has re-
marked, does not belong to classical Greek ; and in the later
Greek, outside of the New Testament, it seems to be infre-
quent. After a pretty extensive examination of the gen-
eral Greek lexicons, from Stephens's Tkesaunis in its several
editions to the great work of Prof. Sophocles on the Greek
of the Roman and Byzantine periods, and also of the special
lexicons, commentaries, etc., illustrating the New Testament,
I cannot find that more than nine examples of it have
hitherto been adduced ; while in one of these the meaning
is questionable, and in another the text is uncertain.* In
the New Testament, however, we have thirty-six clear exam-
ples of the use of the word in the sense referred to, besides
one (John xxl. 23) in which its meaning has been disputed.
The comparative frequency of this use of tpuirau in the New
Testament, though some have considered it a Latinism, is
* They are as follows: Sept. Ps. cxxi. 6 (doubtful). Jos. Ant. v. i. 14 (text uncertain).
Hermog. De Mtik, Eloq. c 3, condemoing this use of the word. Apo'.lon. Dysc. Synt. p. 2S9,
L 30, ed. Bekker. Hennas, Vis. \. 2. Mart. Polyc c. 12. Strato, Epigr. Hii. 8 (Anthol. Gr.
cd. Jacobs, ilL p. 80). Babr. F€ib. xcvii. 3. Charit. viii. 7.— To these may be added the twcnty-
foar following, which I have not seen before referred to : Jos. Ant. vii. 8. i. Bamab. Ep. 4, 21
{M^\ Hennas, Vis. ii. a; iii. i (^w), 2, 10; iv. i; Sim. v. 4; ix. 2, 11. Dux Vi.-e vel Judic.
Petri, in Hilgenleld*s N. T. extra Canonem/vt. p. 100, 1. 20; 105,1. x. Orac. Sibyl, ii. 510;
via. 35$. Const Ap<»t.ii. 16. Babr. Fab. x. 8; xlii. 3. Suidas, s. vv. f^^''^ at and '//Jwra.
I, s. Tt. tpurro at. The more important of these passages will be cited hereafter.
Il6 CRITICAL ESSAYS
probably to be explained by the influence of the Hebrew
or Aramaean on the Greek-speaking Jews, the Hebrew i«r,
with its cognates in Chaldee and Syriac, being freely em.
ployed in both of the principal senses of the English word
ask.
Let us then try the theory of Archbishop Trench by
a few examples of the use of e/xjraw in the New Testament.
(In quoting, I give the rendering of the common English
version.) The first instance of its occurrence is in the
account of the woman of Canaan or Syrophoenicia in Matt.
XV. 23, where we read that the disciples of Jesus " came and
besought him {hp^ruv or vpcirow)^ saying, Send her away/* etc.
Were the disciples of Jesus on a footing of ejuality with
their Master, or of such familiarity as to lend authority
to their request } The next example is in Mark vii. 26,
where we are told respecting the Syrophoenician woman
herself that she '* came and fell at his feet and besought
him {jip^To) that he would cast forth the devil out of her
daughter." Did she address Christ on a footing of equality.^
In Luke vii. 3, the centurion is represented as sending
elders of the Jews to Jesus, " beseeching him (1\hjtuv) that
he would come and heal his servant." So far from this
petition having "authority" in it, or implying **a con-
sciousness of equal dignity," the centurion says (vv. 6, 7)
that he was not worthy that Jesus should enter under his
roof, and that he did not think himself worthy to come
to him. In Luke viii. 37, we read that the Gadarenes
" besought Jesus (yuidrr^nm) to depart from them ; for they
were taken with great fear'' In Luke xvi. 27, the word
is used of the petition addressed to Abraham by the rich
man in Hades, " I pray thee therefore, father " (ip^ri^ nvv a),
etc. Did he, when he lifted up his eyes, being in torments,
consider himself as on a footing of equality with the
patriarch ?
But perhaps the usage of John may favor the Arch-
bishop's theory. Let us see. If the disciples of Christ
addressed their Master with authority (John iv. 31), if the
Samaritans when they " besought Jesus that he would tarry
curco) AND €3<i>Taa> 1 17
with them " (iv. 40), and the nobleman at Capernaum, who
*^ besought him that he would come down and heal his son *'
(iv. 47), the Greeks who " came to Philip and desired him,
saying. Sir, we would sec Jesus" (xii. 21), the Jews who
^* besought Pilate that the legs of the crucified might be
broken, and that they might be taken away" (xix. jif), and
Joseph of Arimathaea, who '* besought Pilate that he might
take away the body of Jesus " (xix. 38), made these requests
"as being on a footing of equality,*' and if it is also clear that
this idea is expressed in these passages by the word '^p^^raij
itself, then, and not otherwise, is Archbishop Trench's view
confirmed by the usage of John. In reference to the last
passage cited, it deserves particular notice that the first
three evangelists, in describing this request of Joseph of
Arimathaea, use the word airkofmi (jjTi/aaro to auua mv •l7<7oi',
Matt, xxvii. 58, Mark xv. 43, Luke xxiii. 52), where John
employs ifM^Tdu Ofturrfaev rov TLeiXdrov . . . Iva dpi) to acj/ia, k. t. ?..).*
It can hardly be necessary to proceed much further in the
citation of passages from the New Testament. The first
example in the Book of Acts (iii. 3) may seem alone decisive
of the question. There, in the account of the man lame
from his birth, it is said that he was laid daily at the Beauti-
ful Gate of the Temple to ask alms {^iTeiv iAerffwavvriv) of those
who went into the Temple, and seeing Peter and John about
to go into the Temple he asked alms (y/x^ra D^r/fioavvr/v /.aSeiv),
Did he ask this as a right, or as being "on a footing of
equality " ? We may further observe that alT^u is here inter-
clianged with epurdu, though this is one of the very passages
adduced by Archbishop Trench to illustrate the distinction
between the words. The other passages in which the word
ifxjratj occurs in the Acts are cc. x. 48 ; xvi. 39 ; xviii.
*Iam indebted for this observation to "a Clergyman of the Church of England/* the
anonTiiioas author ol Am Ex.ttHinatufn of C:iKon LiddorCs Bantpton Ltctures on the Divinity
t*f0ur Lord mnd Sxoionr JexHS Christ (Lond. 1S71), p. 263, note, to whom belongs ths credit,
•o far as I know, of first pointing out ths untenableness of Archbishop Trench's statements
respecting the use of the word efxjrdu. This able writer, however, enters into no full discussion
of the sobject, and is far too liberal in conceding that " about the general accuracy of the
distinction on which the Archbishop insbts there can hz no dispute," contending merely for an
exception in the New Testament osa^e. We shall see that the examples of the word outside of
the New Testaaient are equally at war with the Archbishop's theory.
CBITICAI. ESSAVS
None of them favors the Archbishop's 1
20; xxiii. iS,
view."
What now are the facts adduced by Archbishop Trench in
proof of his position that ',«-7<r^) implies a certain equality
between the asker and the person asked ? The reader may
be somewhat surprised to learn that no evidence is adduced
by him or his followers except what is contained in the ex-
tracts from his article already given. Passing by the mere
assertion that in certain passages of John's Gospel f^ni.j is
used by Christ with this implication, we find that the only
passage of the New Testament referred to in support of this
theory is Luke xiv. 32. Here the argument is that, as one
king is represented as asking another king for conditions of
peace, "the word implies that he who asks stands on a cer-
tain footing of equality with him from whom the boon is
asked."
Now the mere fact that, in any single case of the use of the
word (V«r.ir.., the parties in question are equals, obviously can-
not prove that such equality is implied by the word itself. The
only possible proof of the Archbishop's thesis must consist
in establishing the fact, by induction from a large number of
examples, that the word is always, or at least generally, used
of requests made by one who is regarded as standing on a
footing of equality with him from whom the favor is sought.
That the word is not so used has already been shown. But,
waiving all this, the Archbishop seems to forget that the
king in the passage referred to is represented, not as con-
scious of equality with the hostile king, but of his ineqital-
ity, — his inability to meet, with ten thousand men, him that
Cometh against him with twenty thousand ; so that, when
the other is a great way off, he sends an embassy "to ask for
conditions of peace," or, as Campbell and Norton in their
translations have very naturally phrased it, "to sue for
peace."
• For complilaani, lh= only pMagc in lh« Nei
« TEiMnwDl nal iltEUtr died in which
a hwo reiemd 10, wilh ihe rtndtrioj of
the word in IhECDRnnanEDEluhvinlon: ^i*. Jahur
n. .), firai pin(f) Duirt, Luki viL iv.
.i..ji. /',^v,Lok=-..j; »i.. .a, 1^; Johjiiv. .6;,
m.=S; wii.,(iij, ,,,„; .JohnT, .5.
Bimtck, LuliB ir. jSi li. 17: . Th*». iv. u v- -i
>i > Th™. .u .; , Johi.1. EmIrtM.
atrciu AND ifHUTOM 119
*
It is difficult to imagine that this passage of the New
Testament, or any other, could have suggested the notion
which the Archbishop has affixed to the word. He seems
to have been really influenced by the supposed analogy of
the Latin ro£^o, which does correspond, in its double meaning
and otherwise, very closely with tfxordu, and is used as its
representative throughout the Latin Vulgate. Trench, as
we have seen, asserts that " ro^o implies that he who asks
stands on a certain footing of equality with him from whom
the boon is asked," while fieto, corresponding with aireo), is
the word appropriate to an inferior ; and the following pas-
sage of Cicero is quoted to prove it : " Neque enim ego sic
rogabam^ ut petere viderer, quia familiaris esset meus "
{Plane. X. 25). This statement in regard to the use of rogo
I believe to be incorrect, though something like it may be
found in Doederlein*s Latin Synonyms^ and in the valuable
English-Latin Dictionary published by Dr. William Smith
and Theophilus D. Hall (see the art. Ask), The passage
from Cicero quoted above seems to have been supposed by
Trench and Alford (who, with Dusterdieck, has quoted it
after him) to have the following meaning: "For I did not
ask in such a way as to seem to beg, because he [of whom I
asked the favor] was my intimate friend" ; though a careful
reader who should thus construe the words might be a little
staggered by the subjunctive esset ^ where erat would seem to
be required by the laws of grammar. Now nothing like this
is the real meaning of the passage. The object of rogabam
2L.nd petere is not the person spoken of as ** familiaris meus."
The sentence is imperfectly quoted ; and the Archbishop
appears to have caught it up hastily from his Latin dic-
tionary, without taking the trouble to look into Cicero. It
is necessary, therefore, to point out the connection in which
it stands, and to explain the true force and bearing of the
words. Plancius was accused of having obtained the aedile-
ship by bribery of voters. Cicero in defending him urges,
among other things, that he had himself secured many votes
for him by his personal influence. Cicero's private obliga-
tions to Plancius were so great that the friends of Cicero
^m
ISO CRITICAL CsSAVS
were constrained to vote for him. Ro^abam in the passage
in question is a technical term, denoting the soliciting of
votes for a candidate for office. The full sentence reads as
follows : '• Neqiie enim ego sic rogabara, uE petcre viderer,
quia faniiliarls esset meus. quia vicious, quia huius parente
semper plurimum essem usus, sed ut quasi parenti et custodi
salulis mese." It maybe thus translated: "For I did not
solicit the votes of the people in such a way as to seem to
beg them for Plancius because he was my intimate friend,
because he was my neighbor, because I had always been on
terms of the most familiar intercourse with his father; but
as asking them for one who was. as it were, my own parent,
and the guardian of my safety." The meaning of the pas-
sage does not turn, as Trench seems to suppose, on a con-
trast between roj.ire andpflere. On the contrary, the words
are here interchanged, — ^the rogatio is described as a petitio;
and Cicero had just before spoken of it in the following
terms : " . . . precibus aliquid attulimus etiam nos. Ap-
pellavi populum tributim; submisi me ft supplicavi." In-
stead, therefore, of favoring Archbishop Trench's view of
the use of rogare, the passage is directly opposed to it.
It would lead us too far from our proper subject to discuss
the uses of rogo and its distinction from pclo, but it may be
worth while to refer to a few passages which show how false
is the supposition that it implies the asking of what one
has a right to, or carries with it any notion of equality.
"Molestum verbum est, onerosum, demisso voltu dicendum,
rogo," says Seneca. "Properet licet, sero beneficium dedit,
qui fc'^ti;/// dedit." {De Bcnef.\\.2. Comp, also c. i.) "In
blandiendo, fatendo, satisfaciendo, roganda," says Quintilian,
the voice should be " lenis ct summissa." {fust. Or. xi. 3, 63.)
Comp. Ovid, Met. vii, 90, "auxilium submissa voce rogavit,"
and Poitf. iv. 3, 41. Finally, rjgare is often used of prayer
to the gods, who arii not usually supposed to be addressed
on terms of equality ; eg., " Deos supplcx rogavi," Ovid, Ep.
ii. 17; " Suppliciter rogat^- Deos," Id. Pont. i. 10. 44, comp.
ii. 3, ic», iv. 8, 3 ; " Otium divos rogat," Hor. Cunn. ii. 16, 1.
We have seen that Archbishop Trench finds in the use
alriu AND Iptaram 121
of kptjT&u and the non-use of alTto^ on the part of our Lord in
his prayers to the Father, "the consciousness of his equal
dignity." We shall consider, hereafter, the real distinction
between the words, and shall not find, I think, that the
phenomenon in question requires us to assume that, in the
passages to which he refers, an idea is implied in the word
tpuT^u which cannot be shown to belong to it anywhere else.
And the Archbishop does not seem to have observed that
very different and rather startling conclusions might be
drawn, with equal plausibility, from the premises which he
assumes in regard to this word. We might say, for exam-
ple, that it is very noteworthy, and witnesses for the
singular accuracy in the employment of words which pre-
vails throughout the New Testament, that alrdv or aireiaBat
the constant word for the seeking of the inferior from the
superior, is never used in respect of that which the Apostles
ask of Christ, but is appropriated to their petitions to God
(Matt, xviii. 19; xxi. 22; John xv. 16; xvi. 23, etc.). When
they are represented as requesting anything of Christ, the
word kpurav is employed (Matt. xv. 23 ; Luke iv. 38 ; John
iv. 31), implying an asking as upon equal terms. The only
exception is in Mark x. 35 ; but in that case, as we learn
from the parallel passage (Matt. xx. 20), the petition was not
really presented by the Apostles James and John directly,
but through their mother, who fell down before Jesus and
begged the favor, so that the apparent exception really
confirms the rule. This may suffice for an argumentiim ad
kominem.
The concluding paragraph of Archbishop Trench's article
reads thus in the seventh edition (p. 138) : —
It will follow that the ifxjTav, being thus proper for Christ, inasmuch
as it has authority in it, is not proper for us; and in no single instance
is it used in the N. T. to express the prayer of man to God, of the
creature to the Creator. The only passage seeming to contradict this
assertion is i John v. 16. The verse is difficult, but, whichever of the
various ways of overcoming its difficulty may find favor, it will be
found to constitute no true exception to the rule, and perhaps, in the
substitution of epur^rf for the alHfaei of the earlier clause of the verse,
will rather confirm it.
122 CRITICAL ESSAYS
The passage in question is as follows in the common
version : —
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall
ask (airz/fff/), and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death.
There is a sin unto death ;^ I do not say that he shall pray for it (ov rrepl
eneivijg /Jy<j Iva IfxjTT/orf),
It should be noted here that the word translated " it " in
the last clause of the verse is emphatic in the original, and
should have been rendered "that " or "this."
The Archbishop unfortunately does not favor us with his
view of the passage, and indeed seems to be doubtful about
its meaning ; he is only sure that, at all events, the true
explanation will present no exception to his rule about the
use of efxjTou. In the earlier editions of the Synonyins
reprinted in this country, he did propose an explanation,
which, though adopted by Alford and others, seems now to
have been discreetly abandoned by its original propounder.
According to his former view, it was the design of the
Apostle by the use of the word epur^ari in the last clause to
declare that "the Christian intercessor for his brethren
shall not assume the authority which would be implied in
making request for a sinner who had sinned the sin unto
death " {Syuonyjfis, p. 198, Amer. ed.). The Archbishop has
probably since perceived that the result of assigning this
meaning to f/^wr/iw here, and laying stress on the supposed
difference between it and atrku, must be to suggest that,
though a person is not permitted ^/>wrai;, to ask with author-
ity for the pardon of a sin unto death, he is permitted airuv^
to ask humbly for it. But this is evidently contrary to the
meaning of the Apostle, as it would render nugatory the
restriction in the first clause of the verse. St. John, more-
over, would hardly deem it necessary to tell his readers that
he did not mean to have them address their prayers to God
"as being on a footing of equality" with him.
Bishop Wordsworth gives a different explanation. He
adopts the view of Archbishop Trench, that 'ti>u7d(^ expresses
"the request of an equal, who has a right to ask and
obtain," but does not introduce that meaning here. His
translation of the passage is certainly remarkable : " I am
cured) AND ipuyrdtt} 123
not speaking concerning that, in order that he (the Chris-
tian brother) should ask " ; and the explanation matches it.
He understands St. John "to intimate that no interroga-
tory questions are to be addressed to God concerning the
person who is sinning a sin unto death." • The view of
Webster and Wilkinson is similar: "The Apostle checks
the approach to the throne of grace as to an oracle to
inquire (tpurav) with the intention of airtiv'' Whether this
is the view which Archbishop Trench is now inclined to
entertain, I do not know; it does not appear to have
occurred to any commentator, ancient or modern, except
those whom I have just quoted.
Dismissing, then, these unnatural explanations, which
seem to have been suggested by the exigencies of a theory,
let us turn once more to the passage. Is it not evident that
the Apostle is stating in a positive form, in the last clause
of the verse, the restriction implied in the first .^ "There is
a sin unto death ; [when I say that he shall ask, a/r//«Tf«,] I
do not say that he shall pray (or, " I do not bid him pray ")
for that'' {ov Tzepi €KEivffg ?^yu) iva kparf/oTj)* He has been speaking
of petitions^ not of an " oracle," or of " interrogatory ques-
tions addressed to God."
We may now consider the use of the word f^wrdw outside
of the New Testament. The earliest example adduced is
from the SeptUagint, Ps. CXXi. (Heb. CXxii.) 6, rnurlicare th) ra elg
t'lprpniv Tfjv 'iepovGa?.rfu, which has been translated, " Pray for the
peace of Jerusalem." This is probably the true rendering
of the original Hebrew (see Maurer and Hupfeld /;/ /o:\),
though some understand it differently. But, if we follow
the analogy of precisely the same phraseology in other pas-
sages of the SeptUagint (see I Sam. X. 4, efyuTr/tjovai ae ra tig
uprjvrfv, also XXX. 21 ; 2 Sam. viii. 10; i Chr. xviii. 10), we
shall make the verbal meaning of the Greek translation to
be, "Ask Jerusalem concerning her peace," — that is, as the
•li /iytJ here means " to say,'* and not " to speak " (for which /m.?J<j would be the proper
word), iva cannot mean " in order that," but introduces an object-clause, as in Acts xiz. 4, John
zili. 39, comp. RcT. vi 11, ix. 4, Matt. iv. 3, etc., and Sophocles, Gr. Lex. art. /.iyu. The
word as used here and in the other examples cited is nearly equivalent to ki/^vo. The preposi-
tion rrtpl b to be connected with rp<jri/Gr>, as in Luke iv. 38, John xvii. 9, etc. Comp. i^iofmi
rrtoi Qfiaprtij'.^ Eccfus. xxi. i, xxv ii. 4. xxxit. 5.
114 CRITICAL ESSAVS
phrase is used elsewhere, " Salute Jerusalem," wish her al!
prosperity, (Comp. the rendering of Symmachus, inTrdmrnflf.)
If ij^TijcitT! is here taken in the sense of "pray," we must
suppose an ellipsis of r;,v e,6i' as the being addressed, which
would give us the extraordinary construction of three accusa-
tives after the verb. We should expect, instead of the third
accusative, r-j -if^-iioiM*^. as the verse is inaccurately quoted
by Bishop ElHcott on i Thess. iv. i, and by Webster in
his Syiilax and Synonyms of the Gnck Testament. It is
also to be observed that we thus assign to f(«-rdu a mean-
ing which it has nowhere else in the Septuagtnt. Such
being the state of the case, although the passage is adduced
by liretschneider, Robinson, Bloomfield, Grimm, Sophocles,
and other lexicographers, as an example of f,.ur.iu in the
sense of "to pray," I shall not urge it against Archbishop
Trench's theory.
The nest passage in chronological order is in Josephus,
Ant. V. I. 14, where, after giving the prayer of Joshua, he
says, raiira /-^i' 'Iticwf ixj dttJ/m irtoov iifxliTa 7«« Ikii: Here, if the
text is correct, f/wniu is clearly used of the prayer of man
to God. This is the reading in the editions of Hudson
and Havercamp, and in the earlier editions of Josephus,
Dindorf and Bekkcr, however, have substituted for <„'^ra tIv
fifci:; Tiv tiiiiv iKiTcvi. Notwithstanding the authority of these
eminent critical editors, it seems to me that not only does
the external evidence, as given in Bernard's note in Hav-
ercamp's edition, decidedly favor the reading w'"";, but the
interna! still more. This use of i-iiuraw being rare, and con-
demned by some of the rhetoricians, it was very natural
that a gloss like .Vrm should be substituted for it in some
MSS. ; just as Zonaras {Ann. i. 20), in copying this account
of Josephus, has substituted i''"irt. r™ Aw. Comp. Suidas :
'H;,ur.i ■ mi).!Kn>Ji, tBecv, iil-X"^ lidrcn'.* and SCe also his art. ;/'«-" Of,
cited on the next page.
Eion, and Ihal m ihduld rod, 'Hjiuru ' ^ni^Ku'fti.
[ ill Ml\tr 7rapiiLa?Lti u ■ quolalioo iTncn Bibriui, P
laWy added aliEr Uffevfi; ruking ths liu compUic, i
lu. SctUcra'hiiifinou.
M
oZrtu AND ifHtrrcm 125
But whatever may be thought of this passage of Josephus,
a plenty of unquestionable examples may be cited of efyurdu
used in reference to prayer addressed to God or to heathen
deities. See Hermas, Vis. i. 2, epuH/aiJ rov Kvpmv, iva D^revari
[Sin. i?jiTewj7rTai] fioL, also ibid, ii. 2, iii. i {bis), iv. i ; Sim, v.
4, ix. 2, in all of which passages d^piov is the object ; Orac.
Sibyl, ii. 310, Tio}J>M. J* kpur^aovGi fMTT/v deov v^pi/iidovra, and viii. 355,
Uo?.?^ (T tfxjTT^otMTi ftedv ye rov oIev edvra (so Alexandre ; Fricdlieb
makes the line identical with ii. 310); and Babr. Fab. x, 8,
7T/V Wopo^iTTTv . . . 'EOveVf tjux^j Itdrtvev^ i/pura.
Other passages may be adduced in opposition to Arch-
bishop Trench's notion that tporrdij implies " an asking as
upon equal terms," or with ** authority.*' In the Epistle
ascribed to Barnabas, where the word epordu occurs four
times (cc. 4, 21 thrice) in exhortation, in the sense of **to
entreat," "beseech," we read (c. 21), h<^'f'-i ^m, x'^p^^ ahovfievoc,
"I entreat you, asking it as afavory In Hermas, it is used
of the humble entreaty addressed by the writer to the
woman, representing the Church, who appeared to him in
a vision ( Vis, iii. 2, Teawv 61 avr^q T-pj^ Tovg Tddac ijpcjTfjaa avrr/v . . . lua^
K. r. ?.., also ibid iii. 10), and to the Shepherd or angel of re-
pentance (5"/;;/. ix. 11). In the Epistle of the Church at
Smyrna, giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp (c.
12), the angry multitude are said to have besought (ifp^ruv)
the asiarch to let loose a lion on Polycarp. And in the
Apostolical Constitutions (lib. ii. c. 16) the word is used of
the entreaty to be addressed to the bishop in behalf of a
penitent brother.
The notices of the word by the old grammarians and lex-
icographers may now be quoted. Hermogenes (De Meth.
Eloq. c. 3) condemns the use of ipuTdu and Trapa/cayift) in the
sense of ^io^uu^ "to beg," "to entreat," restricting the former
to the meaning " to inquire " : tdv ci'-t? r^c tpurHi mi TrapaKaAd dvri
rov deofiOiy cuchptjq tlpijue. rh fuv yap iraf)aKa?^iv 1] Ka?^lv kariv ij ^rpoTperreaSaij
t6 6h tpurav TrwHdveaOai. (Walz, R/iet. Gr. iii. 4O4.) ?
Apollonius Dyscolus enumerates among the words " which
denote supplication, oaa iKereiav GTjfjuiivEi^ — yoin'ovuat^ FfHjTtJ ae ev lau
Tu :rapaKa?M (xe, ?uTave{Mj, Itcvovfuu. (Syut. p. 289, cd. Bckkcr.)
Suidas under the word hp^ra has already been quoted. He
126 CRITICAL ESSAYS
3.1 SO has I *E/xjra> at' • rrafKLKaXu at, iKerel'U (re, diofiai, KaX avdic ' *'EWeiv
r/aof abrbv eTi rd 6ei7rwtv r/fyura, avrl rov 7ra{)EKd?^t. HcrC thc linC is
quoted from Babrius, Fad, xlii. 3. Compare also Babrius,
jFad, xcvii. 3, rov Tavfwv DBe'tv ct2 rh dE'trrvov tjp^ra^ and the Same use
of the word in Luke vii. 36, xi. 37.
Zonaras has 'Epuru ae • TrafxiKfuu as, iketeIu (tc, and quotes the
same passage as Suidas. The word does not appear to have
been noticed by Hesychius, Photius, and the other old lex-
icographers and grammarians.
The few remaining examples of kfxjrdu outside of the New
Testament are not of sufficient interest to be quoted.
The preceding examination of the use of kpi^du may satisfy
us that Archbishop Trench's theory not only has no founda-
tion to rest upon, but that it is directly contradicted by a
large majority of the passages in which the word occurs,
both in the New Testament and the later Greek writers.
We will now consider the use of niWw.
In the extract already given from Archbishop Trench's
article, he represents airku, compared with nyurdu, as '*more
submissive and suppliant, indeed the constant word for the
seeking of the inferior from the superior ** ; and this state-
ment may seem to be supported by the prevailing usage of
the word. His view accords also with that of Bengel (notes
on John xi. 22 and i John v. 16), and of Webster in his
Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek Testamcfit^ p. 190.
The following passages, however, must at least be regarded
as exceptions, and may suggest a doubt as to the correct-
ness of the distinction asserted: Luke i. 63, "he asked for
a writing-table and wrote ** {airijcar . . . h/pafrv) ; xii. 48, " to
whom men have committed much, of him they 701// ask
(require) the more " (airiiam^iv) ; Acts xvi. 29, " Then he
called for a light " (airvmir) j i Cor. i. 22, ** For the Jews ;r-
quire signs** (aJrojan) ; and i Pet. iii. 15, "Be always ready
to give an answer to every man that askcth you (ciiTovvn) a
reason for the hope that is in you." In the Septuagint we
read, "What doth the Lord thy God require {niretrai) of
thee?" (Deut. x. 12.) See also 2 Mace. vii. 10. Similar
curctt AND ipuTOiti 127
examples from Philo and Josephus are given by Loesner,
Ods. p. 118, and Krebs, Ods, p. 117, though h-ntriu is gen-
erally used to express the idea of dsinandiiig.
If we are guided by the actual usage of the words, we
shall be led to the conclusion that the distinction between
airktj and i/xjraw in Hellenistic Greek does not depend upon
the relative dignity of the asker and the person asked. In
this respect, they seem to be neutral, as much so as our
English work ask.
The main distinction appears to be this : A;r^w is, in gen-
eral, to ask for something which one desires to receive y
something to be given, rarely for something to be done :
it is therefore used when the object sought, rather than the
person of whom it is sought, is prominent in the mind of
the writer ; hence also it is very rarely employed in exhorta-
tion. 'E/xjrd<j, on the other hand, is to request or beseech a
person to do something, rarely to give something ; it refers
more directly to \)ci^ person of whom the favor is sought, and
is therefore naturally used in exhortation and entreaty.
Doederlein notes a similar distinction between pctere and
rogare, ** As compared with petere,' he says, *' rogare refers
immediately to the person who is applied to for a service :
petere, on the other hand, to the object sought. Cic. in
Verr, : Iste petit a rcge et cum pluribus verbis rogat, uti ad
se mittat," etc. {Lat, Syn, v. 229, 230.)
In confirmation of this view, I will give the results of an
examination of the use of nlreD in the New Testament, the
Septuagint, the so-called Apostolical Fathers, and some
other early Christian writings. For the canonical books of
the Septuagint, I have used the Concordance of Trommius,
and for the Apocrypha Wahl's Clavis ; for Clement of Rome,
Polycarp, and the Ignatian writings, Jacobson's Index to his
edition of the Patrcs Apostolici ; for Barnabas and Hermas,
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Epistle
to Diognetus, my own notes. The classical use of the word
is not important for our present purpose.
To illustrate the distinction referred to, little will be
needed besides the statistics of the constmction of aJ-a.) as
128 CRITICAL ESSAYS
contrasted with kpurdu. Both words must, of course, have
both a person and a thing as their objects, expressed or im-
plied. But the different construction of the words shows
that their relation to these objects was usually conceived of
differently. In the case of alriu, which occurs in the New
Testament seventy-one times, we have : —
1. The thing only expressed, thirty-six times. Twice
(Luke xxii. 23 ; Acts iii. 14) the object is an accusative with
the infinitive ; twice (Acts vii. 46 ; Eph. iii. 13) an infinitive
only ; once (Col. i. 9) iva with the subjunctive.
2. Thing, and person with the preposition irapd or otto, three
times.
3. Person and thing, two accusatives, ten times; thing
expressed by accusative with infinitive, once (Acts xiii. 28).
4. The person only expressed, in the accusative case, six
times (Matt. v. 42, vi. 8, vii. 11 ; Luke vi. 30, xi. 13 ; John
iv. 10).
5. Neither person nor thing expressed, but the thing more
prominent in the context, fifteen times.
One who shall examine the New Testament examples by
the aid of his Concordance will find that, in a great majority
of the seventy-one passages, the request is for something to
hQ given, not done; and that the t hi fig asked for^ rather than
the person, is chiefly prominent in the mind of the writer.
Even in the six examples cited under number four, where
the personal object alone is expressed, the exception is
rather apparent than real ; e.g.. Matt. v. 42, ** Give to him
that askctJi thee," where the thing to be given is not speci-
fied, on account of the comprehensiveness of the injunction.
In the Septuagint a\rki^ occurs about eighty-two times, in-
cluding thirteen in the Apocrypha. We have : —
1. The thing asked for only expressed, thirty-six times.
(In I Sam. xii. 13, I adopt the reading of the Alexandrine
MS.)
2. Thing in the accusative (with one exception), and per-
son in the genitive with -a^w, twenty-six times.
3. Person and thing both expressed in the accusative, ten
times. Passive participle, perhaps with accusative of thing,
once (2 Mace. vii. 10).
aircctf AND t^xuTOiD 129
4. Person only, in the genitive with irapi, four times.
There is no example of the construction with the accusative
of a person only. (In Esth. vii. 7, I adopt the reading of
the Roman edition and the Alexandrine MS.)
5. Neither person nor thing expressed, five times.
The result is that in nearly all, perhaps in all, the exam-
ples found in the Septuagint we may reasonably regard the
object asked for as made more prominent than the person.
This object is also almost always something to be given,
rather than something to be done ; and, accordingly, is only
once expressed by otwc with the subjunctive, never by Zvo,
and never by an infinitive of which the person asked is the
subject. We shall see a striking contrast in the construction
Ot fpurdij.
In the Apostolical Fathers and other early Christian writ-
ings before mentioned, I have noted forty-four examples of
airiij or airio/iai; namely, Clem. Rom. Ep. i. 50, 53, 55. Barn.
21 (in c. 19 probably spurious). Polyc. P/ii/. 7. Ignat.
Tra//. 12; Rom, i, 3, 8 (ffis) ; Polyc, I, 2. Mart. Ignat. 6.
Hermas, Vis, iii. 3, 10 (four times) ; Mand. ix. (eleven times),
xii. s; Sim. iv., v. 3, 4 (five times), vi. 3. Ep. ad Diogn. i.
Test. xii. YzXx.,Jud. 9, Jos, 15, 16 (three times ; I adopt the
reading of the Oxford MS.). They are constructed as fol-
lows : —
1. Thing only expressed, twenty times.
2. Thing, and person with itaph or aTo, ten times.
3. Person and thing, two accusatives, twice. Person in
accusative, and object represented by Uyovrtq with impera-
tive, once (Test. xii. Y2Xx,,Jos, 15).
4. Person only in genitive with jrapd, seven times.
5. Person only, in the accusative, twice.
6. Neither person nor thing expressed, twice.
Without going into a more minute analysis, we perceive
that the result is essentially the same as in our examination
of the usage of the New Testament and the Septuagint.
130 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Contrast now the construction of (puTaL>, of which we have
in all sixty-six or sixty-seven examples. We find : —
1. The person only directly expressed (in the accusative),
eighteen times. The object sought is understood nine times
(Luke iv. 38; John xiv. 16, xvi. 26; Barn. 21 ; Const. Apost.
ii. 16; Apollon. Dysc. Synt, p. 289; Babr. x. 8; Suidas, x. v.
epuTuae; Zouaras, do.) ; indirectly signified by an imperative,
six times (Luke xiv. 18, 19; Phil. iv. 3 ; Barn. 21, dis ; Duae
Viae, p. 100, 1. 20, ed. Hilgenf.) ; by an imperative preceded
by Xiyovreg, twicc (Matt. XV. 23 ; John iv. 31) ; by Myovreg intro-
ducing a sentence with the verb in the indicative, once
(John xii. 21). The passive participle is used, without
object expressed, twice (Strato, Epigr, liii. 8 ; Charit. viii. 7).
2. Accusative of person ; thing variously expressed,
namely: (a) By an accusative, five or six times (John xvi.
23.^ Jos. Ant, V. I, 14; Barn. 4; Herm. Vis, ii. 2; Orac.
Sibyl, ii. 310, viii. 355). (b) By an infinitive, eight times
(Luke V. 3, viii. 37 ; John iv. 40 ; Acts x. 48 ; i Thess. v. 12 ;
Jos. Ant, vii. 8. i ; Duae Viae, p. 105, 1. 2 ; Babr. xcvii. 3). (c)
By \va with subjunctive, fifteen times (Mark vii. 26; Luke
vii. 26, xvi. 27; John xix. 31, 38 ; i Thess. iv. i ; 2 John 5 ;
Mart. Polyc. 12; Herm. Vis. i. 2, iii. 2, 10, iv. i ; Sim, v.
4, ix. 2, 11). (d) By O'wf with the subjunctive, three times
(Luke vii. 3, xi. 37 ; Acts xxiii. 20). (e) By uq -6 with in-
finitive, once (2 Thess. ii. i). In all, thirty-two or thirty-
three times.
3. Thing only expressed : (a) By an accusative, once
(Luke xiv. 32). (b) By an infinitive, four times (Acts iii. 3,
xvi. 39, xxiii. 18 ; Babr. xlii, 3). (c) By ',va with subjunc-
tive, four times (John iv. 47 (Tisch.), xvii. .15, 20; Herm.
Vis, iii. i). In all these cases, the person is prominent in
the context. (Nine times.)
4. Neither person nor thing expressed, five times (John
xvii. 9, bis ; i John v. 16 ; Herm. Vis, iii. i, bis).
The difference of construction illustrates palpably the
reality of the distinction pointed out. Of the sixty-six or
sixty-seven examples of the use of tVwraw, there are only
six or seven in which the object asked for is expressed by
airita AND Ipwram 131
an accusative. In a great majority of cases, it is expressed
by an infinitive, or by iva or 6;rwf with the subjunctive, or
indirectly by an imperative, the thing asked for being usu-
ally something which the person asked is requested to do.
In the one hundred and ninety-seven examples, on the other
hand, which have been cited of the use of aiTtu or alrioficu,
there is hardly (but see Deut. x. 12) a single instance in
which the thing asked for is something which the person is
directly requested to do ; generally, it is something to be
given^ and the object asked for is expressed by an accusa-
tive. Thus we see why, in Matt, xxvii. 58, and the parallel
passages in Mark and Luke, we have yTiiaam rb oofm, k.t.i.^
out in John ^p6Tij(jev rbv TleiXaTOif . . . Iva apr^ to adtia^ k. t.X. in John
xiv. 16 and xvi. 26, epcyrdu may be preferred to aiTio, because
the personal object not only is prominent, but is alone ex-
pressed. In the prayer, John xvii. 9, 15, 20, the personal
object, indeed, is not expressed, but is prominent in the
mind, from the nature of the case. It may also be true that
kputraii^ though not implying "equality*' or ** authority," ac-
cords better than oxTkLi with the intimate personal relation
between Christ and the Father, and also with that between
Christ and his disciples. In Acts iii. 2, 3, the transition
from aire/v to kpurav may perhaps be explained by the promi-
nence given in the third verse to Peter and John, the per-
sons from whom the alms was asked, though the personal
object is not expressed after the verb. It is further evi-
dent that, with kpi^rdu, the idea of earnestness is often asso-
ciated; see, e,g.y Mark vii. 26; Luke viii. 37, xvi. 27. Our
translators have felt this, in rendering the word so often
"beseech" or "entreat." This is much more rarely the case
with airku OX a\rko<iai, which is accordingly seldom used in exhor-
tations. The exception in Ignat. Ravi. 8 is so unusual that
Vossius insists that the^ true reading there must be -^rapaKo/.u.
The use of alrovfuu in Kph. lU. 13, Alo alrnhuai /nf/ evKaKrtv iv raJ^
(Oj^aiv fwv vxep ifitjv, SLCCordingly iavoTS the rendering, "Where-
fore I pray that I may not be disheartened in my afflictions
in your behalf," rather than, " I entreat you not to be dis-
132 CRITICAL ESSAYS
heartened/' etc., though many of the best scholars prefer
the latter.*
If the preceding statements are correct, we cannot accept
the distinction between tpordu and dr/w, which Huther pro-
poses in the last edition of his Commentary on the First
Epistle of John (note on i John v. 16). He says that epurav,
properly "to inquire" (fra^e/i), is a milder asking than airczv,
which properly means " to demand " {forderti), and expresses
greater urgency. Bcngel, in his note on the same passage,
regards tp'^rhv as denoting the ^^ genus'' of which aXxtiv is a
^^ species hnmilior'' ; in other words, Epuir<iv is "to ask," in
general, while aimi; is "to ask humbly," "to beg" (Com-
pare his note on John xi. 22.) But we have seen that this
view is not sufficiently supported by usage.
In the comparison which has been made between kputrhu
and alrku), it must be borne in mind that the former word, in
the sense of " to request " or " entreat," appears never to
have had a wide currency. It seems to have been familiar
in this sense to Luke, John, Paul, Hermas, the author of the
Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, and Babrius. It does not
occur in the Septuagint, is rare in Josephus, and seems to
be very rare in the later Greek generally. We find cont-
monly in its place a;/<5w, i^komi, or TraoaxaPfw. Though this use
of ^npnuaiiu) is condcmncd by Hermogenes, it is remarkably
frequent in Josephus. It occurs a few times in the Septua-
gint ; but there we have more commonly (Stofjai or <\^i6o,. One
might suppose from its etymology and classical use that
the latter word would have the sense which Archbishop
Trench ascribes to epurdu, of asking for something to which
one has a certain right ; but it is not so. It is used in the
simple sense of to express a desire for something ; or, with
reference to a person, "to ask," "request," "pray." It
often occurs with rbv dedv or Ki>oy as its object ; and is even
used absolutely, as we should use "to pray" in English.
•On the side of the former construction (for which comp. Ignat. Trail. 12, o'lroifXEVo^ Beov
eTTiTi'i^'v) are the Syriac version, Theodorel, Bengel, Riickert, Harlcss, Baumgarten-Cnisias,
Olshausen, Wahl, Bretschneider, Conybeare, Braune, Ewald : the latter is supported by
Theophylact, Grotius, LeClerc. Reausohre, Wolf, Matthies, De Wetie, Meyer, Bleek, Schenkel,
Alford, EUicott, Eadie, Noyes, and ihe niajviiity of expositors.
alriu} AND ipoyrau) 133
Aiouai is also frequently thus used ; and, what will seem very
strange to a merely classical scholar, is often followed in the
Septuagint, and once in the New Testament, by Trpd; with
the accusative, like eixofmi ^nd-Trpoceyxo/iai.
We will conclude this long discussion with the examina-
tion of a passage of considerable interest, in which the
meaning of kpun-ou has been disputed. I refer to John xvi. 23,
which reads as follows in Tischendorf s last edition : Kai kv
eiaivQ rrj rjfikp'i ifik ovk kpurrjoeTe ovdev. afir'/v aur/v Xiyu) vfuVy hv ri alri/aifTe rdif
^aripa^ sCxjet vfuv h r(?i bv6fmTi fiov. " And in that day yc will ask
nothing of me. Truly, truly, do I say to you, if ye ask any-
thing of the Father, he will give it to you in my name."
The question is whether tpurdu is here used in the sense
of '*to inquire," as in vv. 19, 30, or "to request," as in
V. 26. Archbishop Trench remarks : —
Every one competent to judge is agreed that " ye shall ask " of the
first half of the verse has nothing to do with "ye shall ask " of the
second ; that, in the first, Christ is referring back to the i/Oehyv avrdv
ipurdv of ver. 19, to the questions which the disciples would fain have
asked of him, if only they dared to set these before him. *' In that
day," he would say, " in the day of my seeing you again, I will by the
Spirit so teach you all things, that ye shall be no longer perplexed, no
longer wishing to ask me questions (cf. John xxi. 12), if only you might
venture to do so." — Syn., p. 136.
The explanation given by Archbishop Trench is sup-
ported by Lampe, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, De Wette,
Meyer, Ewald, Godet, Bloomfield, Alford, and a large ma-
jority of modern expositors ; also, by Wakefield and Norton
in their translations of the New Testament. But it seems
to involve serious difficulties, which are not satisfactorily
explained by these eminent commentators. Our Saviour
is referring to the time when he was to be personally with-
drawn from the disciples, and another Helper (Ta9a/c/.;/rof),
the Holy Spirit, should, as it were, take his place. But why
should he say that then they would ask him no questions f
Was it worth while to tell them that they would not do
what from the nature of the case was impossible } It is
to be observed further that me is the emphatic word in the
134 CRITICAL ESSAYS
sentence, — emphatic both by form (kfzi) and position. We
have then the meaning, ** In that day you will ask no ques-
tions of mc ** ; but what is the antithesis ? We are told
that the meaning is, You will have no need to question me,
because the Holy Spirit will enlighten you. But is not this
putting violence on the simple k\d oIk kpurtfaere ovSev} Further,
though an antithesis is so strongly demanded by the em-
phatic f/i/, according to this explanation we have none
expressed, and none which is plainly suggested by the
immediate context.
If now, on the other hand, we take epuH/aere in the sense
of "to request,'* all is smooth and natural. The emphatic
tfii finds its immediate antithesis in rdv Trarepa; and we have
no sudden transition from the subject of putting questions
to that of petitioning. We have similar examples of the
interchange of epurdu and airfu in Acts iii. 2, 3, and i John
V. 16; and it accords with the ordinary use of the words,
eft<jrd(j being elsewhere employed of the requests addressed
by the disciples to Christ, airiot of their petitions to God.
Though, after the departure of their Master from the earth,
the disciples would not address their petitions directly to
him, as they had done when he was personally present with
them, they would have all needed aid ; whatever they should
ask of the Father, he would give them in his name, — that is,
on his account, or on account of their relation to him, they
being, as it were, his representatives, carrying on his work
upon the earth ; comp. c. xiv. 26 ; also. Matt, xviii. 19, 20.
Though a majority of the best scholars adopt the other
interpretation, it is too much to say, with Archbishop
Trench, that "every one competent to judge is agreed" that
the words must be so understood. Among the scholars
who take //r^riu here in the sense of ** to request ** are
Henry Stephens in his Thcsauncs^ s. v. /Y>(.,r(iwj Grotius,
Vossius {Harm, Ev. i. c. 18, § 18; 0pp. vi. 151), LeClerc
{Nonv. Test), Beausobre and Lenfant {N. 7!), Schoett-
gen, Archbishop Newcome in his translation, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Weizsacker {Jahrb, f. deiitschc ThcoLy 1857, ii. 183,
note), and Weiss {Der jo/ian. Lchvbcgriff, Berl. 1862, p. 278),
curco> AND ipwrdo} 135
who in a pretty full discussion of the passage does not
hesitate to call this an "evidente exegetische Resultat." *
Schleusner, in his Lexicon, though explaining the clause
in question by "habebitis idoneam et perfectam scientiam,"
says, ** Alii non minus commode rcddunt, turn nihil amplius
a me petetis. Confer sequentia " ; and Schirlitz ( Wdrterb.
zitm N, 7!, i^ Aufl., 1868) assigns to ipi^rai^ here the mean-
ing bitten^ **to request.*' Bretschneider, Wahl, and Robin-
son do not notice the passage. Among our American com-
mentators who have assigned this meaning to k^ran here
may be mentioned Barnes (though he thinks there may be
a reference to both meanings of the word), and Dr. Howard
Crosby, in his Notes on the New Testament. According to
Bloomfield {Recensio Synoptica^ in loc), fpwrdw is explained in
this passage as meaning "to request" by Chrysostom, Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia, Theodore of Heraclea, and Theophylact.
This is, however, not quite correct. Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact, and also Euthymius recognize both meanings of ipurku
in their notes on the verse, kindly allowing the reader his
choice. The expression used 'by Nonnus in his Paraphrase
may be regarded as ambiguous. There seems to be nothing
bearing on the point in the writings of Theodore of Mop-
suestia (Migne's Patrol. Grceca, vol. Ixvi.). Theodore of
Heraclea is probably the author of some of the notes on the
Gospel of John, of which fragments have been preserved
in a Gothic translation published by Massmann under the
title Skeireins Aivaggeljons thairh Johanncn, Munchen,
1834; but there appears to be among them no note on
John xvi. 23, nor do I know on what the statement of
Bloomfield respecting this writer can be founded.
Whatever view may be taken of the disputed passage, the
interpretation just given has too much in its favor, and is
supported by too many respectable scholars, to be dismissed
at once with contempt.
It may be said, however, that the above explanation of
*So H. J. de Haan Hugenholtz, DUp. theol. inaug. (Lugd. Bat. 1834), p. 56. He cites
Viake at taking the same new, and adds, "Utramque notionem conjungere cupiunt Stark'us
et Vaii HmwsxDSN."
136 CRITICAL ESSAYS
ifii ovK epurf/aere oi'div is forbidden by the fact that the early
Christians habitually addressed their prayers to Christ, as
is shown by the use of the expression "to call upon the
name of the Lord," Acts ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16; Rom. x.
12-14; I Cor. i. 2 (comp. Acts ii. 21 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22) ; and
by the examples of Stephen (Acts vii. 59) and Paul (2 Cor.
xii. 8). I admit that if the phrase ol i7nKa?joi'fievot rd dvoua rw
Kvpiov as applied to the early Christians implies that their
petitions were habitually addressed to Christ instead of to
the Father in his name, this fact is an objection to the
interpretation proposed. The question is one of no little
interest ; but to discuss it here would carry us much too
far, and might lead into the thorny paths of dogmatic
theology.
III.
ANCIENT PAPYRUS AND THE MODE OF MAK-
ING PAPER FROM IT.
(From the Library Jcmmal, vol. iii., No. lo, November, 1878.]
The Egyptian papyrus plant has played so important a
part among ancient materials for writing that perhaps the
Library Journal is a not inappropriate place for the correc-
tion of a common error respecting it, — an error found not
only in popular works, but in many of deservedly high repu-
tation. In Adam's Roman Afitiquities, for example, we
read that " the papyrus was about ten cubits high, and had
several coats or skins above one another, like an onion, which
they separated with a needle" (p. 424, New York ed., 1828).
In the article " Liber," in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and
Roman Afitiquities^ the writer says, " The papyrus-tree
grows in swamps to the height of ten feet or more, and
paper was prepared from the thin coats or pellicles which sur-
round the plant** Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, under
/3/^?^, defines the word, first as "the ifiner bark of the
papyrus," and then as "the paper made of this barky A
similar account is given in the Lexicons of Jacobitz and
Seiler, Pape, and Rost and Palm's edition of Passow, under
r" 3/j(K and n-dTu/jof; so also in the common Latin dictiona-
ries, English and German, under " Papyrus " ; and in many
encyclopaedias, — ^.^., the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 8th edi-
tion, art. "Paper," v. 17, p. 247; and Pauly's Rcal-Encyclo-
pddie der classischen Alterthuinswissenschafty v. 5, pp. 1 155,
1 156. Other works of very high character contain this rep-
resentation, as Becker's Chariklcs, 2te Aufl. (1854), v. i.
p. 282 ff., in an elaborate note (compare the English transla-
tion, p. 161, n. 12) ; Guhl and Koner's Life of th: Greeks
138 CRITICAL ESSAYS
and Romans, translated from the third German edition
(Lo:id. 1875), p. 198 ff., which speaks of the stem of the
papyrus plant as having about twenty ''layers of bark'' ;
and so even Marquardt, RJniischc Privatalterthiimcr, Abth. 2
(1867), p. 390, who has given in general a wonderfully com-
plete and accurate account of all that relates to the writing
and book-making of the ancient Romans.
These are high authorities ; but it is safe to say that the
statements which have been italicized in the quotations given
above are wholly erroneous. The papyrus plant (Cypenis
papyrus of Linnaeus, or Papyrus antiquorum, Willd.) belongs
to the family of Cypcraccce, or sedges : it is an endogenous
plant, with a triangular stem ; and to talk about its " inner
bark,*' and "layers'* like the coats of an onion, is a simple
absurdity. One might as well speak of "the inner bark" of
a stalk of Indian corn, or of a bulrush. The error has orig-
inated from ignorance or forgetfulness of the elements of
botany, and the consequent misinterpretation of the passage
in Pliny {Hist. JV.it., .xiii. 11-13, al. 21-27), which is our chief
source of information about the ancient manufacture of
paper from this plant. One of the words which Pliny uses
to describe the very thin strips into which t/ie cellular sub-
stance of the stem was sliced in making the paper \s philyra,
which strictly denotes the inner bark of the linden tree,
also employed as a writing material. Hence, the papyrus
has been conceived of as an exogenous plant, with its outer
and inner bark, and has actually been called a " tree" !
But though the error to which I have referred has widely
prevailed, and seems to have a tenacious vitality, it must not
be supposed that it is universal. The botanists, of course,
have not made such a mistake; see, e.g., Sprengel, art. " Pa-
pyrus," in Ersch and Gruber's Allgeni, Encycl., Sect. 3, Theil
II (1838), p. 230; Tristram's Nat. Hist, of the Bible, 2d ed.
(1868), p. 435 ; and Le Maout and Djcaisne's General Sys-
tem of Botany, translated by Mrs. Hooker (1873), p. 880.
A correct account is also given in Wilkinson's Manners and
Customs of the Ancient Ei^yptians, v. 3, p. 148, and in Watten-
bach's Das Schriftuesen im Mittclalter (1871), p. 6t. The
ANCIENT PAPYRUS 1 39
most thorough article on the subject with which I am ac-
quainted is the " Mimoire sur le papyrus et la fabrication du
papier chez les anciens," by M. Bureau de la Malle, in the
MJmoircs d: VAcad, des Inscriptions ct Belles-Lettrcs (Insti-
tut de France), torn. 19, pt. i (185 1), pp. 140-183, in which
the passage of Pliny above referred to is fully explained.
See also the " Dissertation sur le papyrus," by the Count de
Caylus, in the M^inoires de CAcad, des Inscriptions et Belies-
Lcttres (1752-54), torn. 26, pp. 267-320.
It may be worth while, perhaps, to call attention to
another mistake in the English translation of Guhl and
Koner's Life of the Greeks and Romans ^ already cited. We
there read (p. 198), in the account of making paper from the
papyrus plant : " The stalk . . . was cut longitudinally, after
which the outer bark was first taken off; the remaining
layers of bark, about twenty in number {philnrce), were care-
fully severed with a pin ; and, afterwards, the single strips
plaited crosswise ; by means of pressing and perforating the
whole with lime-water, the necessary consistency of the
material was obtained." Lime-water^ indeed ! The Ger-
man Leimwasscr and the English lime-water are very differ-
ent things. What is meant is glue-water, water in which
gluten (Germ. Lcim) has been dissolved. See Pliny, Hist.
Nat., xiii. 12, al. 26.
Onthe botanical questions respecting the papyrus of Sicily,
Syria, and ancient Egypt, see particularly Parlatore, *' M^-
moire sur le papyrus des anciens et sur le papyrus de Sicile,"
in the M^m, pr^sentds par divers savants a VAcad. des Sci-
ences, tom. 12 (1854), pp. 469-502, with 2 plates. Parlatore
makes two distinct species, and Tristram agrees with him;
but Otto Bockeler, in a recent monograph, ** Die Cyperaceen
des Koniglichen Herbariums zu Berlin," in the Linnaca, Bd.
36 (1869-70), pp. 303, 304, regards the Cypcrus syriacus of
Parlatore as only a variety of the Cypcrus papyrus of Lin-
naeus.
IV.
ON THE COMPARATIVE ANTIQUITY OF THE
SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS
OF THE GREEK BIBLE.
[From the Journal of the Amtrican Oriental Sacitty, vol. x., No i, 187a.]
The present essay was suggested by a recent work of the
Rev. J. W. Burgon, Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, enti-
tled The Last Twelve Verses of th: Gospel according to
S. Mark Vindicated against recent Critical Objectors and
Established (London, 1871). In one of the Appendixes to
this volume (pp. 291-294), Mr. Burgon has a dissertation ** On
the Relative Antiquity of the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the
Codex Sinaiticus (x)," in which he maintains that certain
"notes of superior antiquity,'* which he specifies, "infallibly
set Codex B before Codex K, though it may be impossible to
determine whether by fifty, by seventy-five, or by one hun-
dred years" (p. 293). He does not doubt that they are "the
two oldest copies of the Gospels in existence"; but, "if the
first belongs to the beginning, the second may be referred
to the middle or latter part of the fourth century *' (p. 70).
Tischendorf, on the other hand, now assigns both MSS.
to the middle of the fourth century; and even maintains
that one of the scribes of the Sinaitic MS., whom he desig-
nates by the letter D, wrote the New Testament part of the
Codex Vaticanus. Mr Burgon's arguments are for the most
part new, and have not, so far as I am aware, been subjected
to any critical examination. Few scholars, in this country
at least, have the means of testing the correctness of his
statements. His book in general, and his discussion of the
present subject in particular, have been highly praised ; and
he writes throughout in the tone of one who teaches with
THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 141
authority. It has seemed to me, therefore, that a review of
the arguments put forth with such confidence might be of
interest.
In the present investigation, I have relied chiefly on the
original edition of the Sinaitic MS. published by Tischen-
dorf in 1862 in four volumes folio, printed in fac-simile
type, with nineteen plates of actual fac-similes of different
parts of the MS. ; and on the similar edition of the Codex
Vaticanus now publishing at Rome, of which three volumes
have thus far appeared, two of them containing the Old
Testament as far as the end of Nehemiah, and the other
the New Testament part of the MS. I have also used
Tischendorfs fac-simile edition of the Codex Friderico-
Augustanus (another name for forty-three leaves of the
Sinaitic MS.), published in 1846; his Novum Testajnenttim
Vaticamim (1867) with the Appendix (1869) ; and his Appen-
dix Codicum celcberrimorum Sinaitici Vaticani Alexandrini
with fac-similes (1867).
Mr. Burgon's arguments are as follows: (i) **The (all
but unique) sectional division of Codex B, confessedly the
oldest scheme of chapters extant, is in itself a striking note
of primitiveness. The author of the Codex knew nothing,
apparently, of the Eusebian method."
The Vatican MS. has in the Gospels a division of the text
into chapters, which differs from that found in most MSS.
from the fifth century onward, and appears, so far as is
known, in only one other MS., the Codex Zacynthius (h),
of the eighth century. It has also a peculiar division into
chapters in the Acts and Epistles. Mr. Burgon finds in its
scheitie of chapters " a striking note of primitiveness.'* But
the Sinaitic has no division into chapters at all, a prima manu.
Is not that quite as primitive } Further, Mr. Burgon's argu-
ment appears to be of a circular character. The only proof
of the high antiquity of the "scheme of chapters" referred
to is its existence in the Vatican MS.
It may be worth while, perhaps, to remark that the Roman
edition of the Vatican MS. seems to afford evidence (p. 1272,
142 CRITICAL ESSAYS
col. I, and p. 1299, col. 3) that the division into chapters,
noted by numbers in red in the margin, was not made by
the original scribe, but by one who preferred in some places
a different division into paragraphs. It may have been
made, however, by a contemporary hand.
Mr. Scrivener thinks it ** very credible that Codex Sinaiti-
cus was one of the fifty volumes of Holy Scripture, written
* on skins in ternions and quaternions,' which Eusebius pre-
pared A.D. 331 by Constantine's direction for the use of the
new capital." (Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, p. xxxvii. f.
Comp. Euseb. Vita Const, iv. 36, 37.) This is possible,
though there is no proof of it. Mr. Burgon*s argument, that,
because the Eusebian sections do not correspond with the
paragraphs in the Codex Sinaiticus, Eusebius could have
known nothing of the MS. (p. 294), is utterly futile. The
object of those sections is totally different from that of a
division into paragraphs. The Eusebian sections are not
chapters or paragraphs, but merely serve for a comparison of
parallel or similar passages in the Gospels. In not less than
twenty-five instances there are two of them (in one case
three) in a single verse ; see, e.g.^ Matt. xi. 27 ; Mark xiii. 14 ;
Luke vi. 21 ; John xix. 6, 15, 16.
The Eusebian sections are not in the Sinaitic MS. a pnma
vianuy though they may, as Tischendorf supposes, have been
added by a contemporary scribe. In that case, the MS. may
still be older than the middle of the fourth century ; for
Eusebius died about a.d. 340. It is curious to see how
Scrivener contradicts himself on this matter in a single page
(Collation, etc., p. xxxvii).
(2) " Codex }< (like C, and other later MSS.),'* says Mr.
Burgon, "is broken up into short paragraphs throughout.
The Vatican Codex, on the contrary, has very few breaks
indeed : e.g., it is without break of any sort from S. Matth.
xvii. 24 to XX. 17; whereas, within the same limits, there
are in Cod. J< as many as thirty interruptions of the context.
From S. Mark xiii. i to the end of the Gospel, the text is
absolutely continuous in Cod. B, except in one place ; but
in Cod. f< it is interrupted upwards of fifty times. Again :
THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPfS I43
from S. Luke xvii. 1 1 to the end of the Gospel, there is but
one break in Cod. B. But it is broken into well-nigh an
hundred and fifty short paragraphs in Cod. K.
** There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex
B (resembling the style of the papyrus of Hypcridcs pub-
lished by Mr. Babington) is the more ancient. The only
places where it approximates to the method of Cod. K. are
where the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix.
18, etc.), and where our Lord proclaims the eight Beatitudes
(S. Matth. V.)."
Here, apparently, the stress of Mr. Burgon's argument
rests on the rarity of paragraphs, indicated by " breaks," in
the Vatican MS., as compared with the Sinaitic. If this is
so, he has strangely misrepresented the facts in the case.
In the first passage referred to (Matt. xvii. 24 to xx. 17)
there are certainly no less than thirty-two " breaks " in the
Vatican MS., designed to mark a division into paragraphs.
In two instances (Matt. xvii. 24, xix. i), the division is made
by the projection of the initial letter into the left-hand
margin, in the manner usual in the Sinaitic MS. ; in thirty,
by a space between the words, and a dash ( — ) below the
line where the break occurs, projecting into the left-hand
margin, after the fashion common in the Herculanean and
early Egyptian papyri, and also found, though more rarely,
in the Sinaitic MS. Besides these thirty-two cases there
are seven in which a paragraph is indicated by a dash sim-
ply, the preceding sentence happening to fill the whole line
above it. There are also in the passage referred to about
ten places in which the end of a sentence or a paragraph
is indicated by a space simply. (In respect to the repre-
sentation of these spaces, there is a little difference, in two
or three places, between the Roman edition and that of
Tischendorf.) But, dismissing the simple spaces from the
account altogether (though they are certainly breaks), we
have in the first passage selected by Mr. Burgon a division
into paragraphs in the Vatican MS. even more minute than
in the Sinaitic. In Mark xiii. i to xvi. 8 there are thirty-
nine paragraphs in the Vatican MS. marked by the dash and
144 CRITICAL ESSAYS
space, or by the dash alone, when the preceding line is full ;
and in Luke xvii. ii to xxiv. 53, one hundred and twenty-
nine paragraphs are thus marked, besides two in which the
initial letter projects into the margin. There are also places
in which divisions are marked by spaces alone.
Such being the state of the case, it may perhaps be
thought that Mr. Burgon does not mean to argue the supe-
rior date of the Vatican MS. from the comparative rarity of
its divisions into paragraphs, but merely from the manner
in which they are made; and that he intends by "break"
the projection of the initial letter of a paragraph into the
left-hand margin, which we find in the Vatican MS. in the
Beatitudes (Matt, v.), though not in Matt. xix. 18, the only
other place, according to Mr. Burgon, in which B "approxi-
mates to the method of CoJ. K." This, however, can hardly
be his meaning; for he makes a separate point of that
feature of the Sinaitic MS. in his fourth argument, which
will be considered in its proper place.
As to the frequency of the division into paragraphs, we
find a great difference in different parts of both the Sinaitic
and the Vatican MSS. For example, in the Sinaitic MS.
(vol. ii.), from i Mace. v. 55 to x. 18, two hundred and
forty-nine verses, there is but one indication of a paragraph
besides that with which the passage begins. For twenty-
one entire columns of forty-eight lines each, namely, from
fol. 21,* col. 4, to fol. 26, col. 4, inclusive (i.e., for more
than one thousand lines), there is no break and no sign
of a paragraph whatever. In the First Book of Maccabees,
which contains thirty-six pages in the Codex Sinaiticus,
there are sixteen pages in which there is no indication of
a paragraph, and ten more in each of which but one para-
graph is marked. In the Fourth Bjok of Maccabees, the
paragraphs are still rarer in proportion to its length. In
the Vatican MS., on the other hand, to anticipate a little
the answer to Mr. Burgon's fourth argument, there are
many pages in each of which from ten to twenty para-
graphs are marked by the projection of the first letter of
a word into the left-hand margin ; see, e.g.y pp. 41, 44, 48,
THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 1 45
S3» 7i» 73-7S» 123, 186, 187. 226, 291-294 (vol. i. of the
Roman ed.) ; and a page of the Vatican MS. contains con-
siderably less than a page of the Sinaitic. In respect both
to the frequency of the paragraphs and to the manner of
indicating them, much appears to have depended upon the
fancy of the copyist. The books most read would naturally
be divided the most.
(3) "Again," says Mr. Burgon, "Cod. 5< is prone to ex-
hibit, on extraordinary occasions, a single word in a line,
as at —
.. MATTH. XV.
30-
S. MARK X. 29.
S. LUKE XIV. 13
jfwPuOtXJ
7 a6eAt^a
TTTUXOVO
Tv^hiva
r} Tzarepa
avaTTTjpows
#cvAAov(T
Ti firrrepa
X^y^va
Ku<^ova
Tf T€KVa
ri aypovc
rv(^Xovo
" This became a prevailing fashion in the sixth century ;
e,g.y when the Codex Laudianus of the Acts (E) was written.
The only trace of anything of the kind in Cod. B is at the
Genealogy of our Lord."
Here, again, Mr. Burgon mistakes the facts in the case.
We find this stichometric mode of giving greater distinct-
ness to particulars exemplified in repeated instances in the
Vatican MS., besides the striking one of the genealogy in
Luke. For example, on p. 211, col. 3, of the MS., the
names of the twenty-two unclean birds in Deut. xiv. 12-18
appear each in a separate line. On p. 247, col. 3, there
is a similar stichometry of six lines ; on p. 254, col. i, one
of at least twenty-five lines (Josh. xii. 10-22, the list of
kings), with another example in the same column, and still
another in the next ; and on p. 485, col. 2, there is one of
eleven lines (the "dukes" in i Chron. i. 51-54). For other
instances, see p. 71, col. 3 ; p. j6^ col. i ; p. 274, col. 2 ; p. 316,
col. 3; and p. 917, col. 3.
We find, moreover, in the Vatican MS., the different
branches of the genealogy in Matthew presented in thirty-
eight distinct paragraphs ; and the beatitudes in Matt. v.
and the salutations in Rom. xvi. are similarly treated.
146 CRITICAL ESSAYS
This may be regarded as a kind of stichometry, of which
we have also examples in the Old Testament: e,g., p. 138,
col. I, 2; p. 264, col. I ; p. 272, col. I ; p. 309, col. i. All
that can be said in respect to the first form of stichi is
that it is much more common in the Sinaitic MS. than in
the Vatican, especially in the New Testament. Both MSS,
have also another mode of making distinct the items of an
enumeration ; namely, by spaces between the words, with
or without dots (the Roman edition of B does not agree
with* Tischendorf's about the dots); eg., Rom. i. 29-31,
both MSS.; and in the Vatican, i Cor. vi. 9, 10, xiii. 13,
xiv. 26; Gal. V. 19-23; Phil. iv. 8; Col. iii. 8. The choice
between the modes seems to have been determined by the
taste of the scribe ; compare, for example, in the Vatican
MS., Lev. xi. 13-19 with Deut. xiv. 12-18 (pp. in and
211). It cannot be made a criterion of date.
(4) Mr. Burgon's fourth argument is this : " At the com-
mencement of every fresh paragraph, the initial letter in
Cod. K slightly projects into the margin^ beyond the left-hand
edge of the column, as usual in all later MSS. This char-
acteristic is only not undiscoverable in Cod. B. Instances
of it there are in the earlier Codex ; but they are of exceed-
ingly rare occurrence."
The expression **as usual in all later MSS." is likely to
mislead. There is a great difference between the style of
the Sinaitic MS. and that of the Alexandrine, the Ephraem,
and later MSS. generally, in respect to the mode of indicat-
ing the beginning of paragraphs. In the Sinaitic, the initial
letter, which slightly projects, and often does not project at
all, is no larger than the rest, a peculiarity found in but
a very few existing MSS., and those the oldest known to
us. In the other MSS. referred to, the initial letter, or,
when the new paragraph begins in the middle of a line, the
first letter of the line following, is very much larger than
the others, and stands out wholly in the margin, giving
these MSS. a strikingly different appearance from that of
the Sinaitic and the Vatican. But the characteristic which
Mr. Burgon says is ** exceedingly rare,'* " only not undis-
THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 147
coverable/* in the Vatican MS., occurs ten times on the
very first page of that MS. ; and in the first two hundred
and ninety-four pages, namely, from Gen. xlvi. 28 (to;up) to
I Sam. xix. 11 (ayyeXova), there are 1,441 examples of it.
Though less common in the New Testament part of the
MS., in the first eight pages it occurs thirty-one times.
When Codex B was written, the choice between this mode
of indicating the beginning of a paragraph and the other,
described under Mr. Burgon's second argument, was evi-
dently a matter depending on the taste of the copyist.
In the two hundred and ninety pages following the word
ayyO^vo in I Sam. xix. II, extending to the end of Nehemiah,
there are but two clear examples of it ; namely, on pp. 343,
484. (The projecting letter, pp. 578 and 606, is not the first
letter of a paragraph or even of a word.) In the two Books
of Chronicles, the First Book of Esdras, and the Books of
Ezra and Nehemiah together, there is no example of that
mode of indicating paragraphs which is usual in the Sinaitic,
and so common in the first two hundred and ninety-four
pages of the Vatican (pp. 41-334). The natural inference
is that we have in the part of the MS. beginning with
P^ige 335 the hand of a different scribe ; and this inference
is confirmed by the striking difference between these pages
of the MS. and those which precede, in respect to the use
of ^ to fill up a space at the end of a line, and by other
peculiarities. Even Mr. Burgon will hardly contend that
the scribe who wrote page 334 of the Codex Vaticanus
lived fifty or one hundred years after the writer of page 335.
Both of these modes of indicating paragraphs are of an
antiquity greatly exceeding that of the Sinaitic and Vatican
MSS. The use of the space between words and the dash
or some other mark to attract attention in the left-hand
margin of the column (Ta/jaypa^// or 'rrapdyf)a(;>o<7, something
written at the side), in the old Herculanean and Egyptian
•papyri, has already been mentioned. See, for a specimen,
the beautiful papyrus of a Greek treatise on rhetoric, written
before 160 B.C., published in fac-simile in " Papyrus grecs du
Mus^ du Louvre," etc., edited after Letronne by Brunet de
148 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Presle (torn, xviii., 2* ptie. of Notices et extraits dcs majiu-
scrits, etc., published by the French Institute, Paris, 1865),
pi. xi., pap. No. 2. (Also in Silvestre, PaUogr, univ,, pi.
55.) In the same volume, pi. xxxiv., pap. 49, in a letter of
a certain Dionysius to Ptolemy, about 160 B.C., we have per-
haps the earliest known example of the use of two dots like
our colon for separating paragraphs, in conjunction with the
marginal dash, precisely like the style which frequently
occurs in both the Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS., though
the Vatican more commonly omits the dots. Finally, in the
curious ** Nativity '* or Th:ma gcnethliacuin, dated in the first
year of the Emperor Antoninus (a.d. 138), of which a fac-
simile is given in pi. xxii., pap. 19, and also in Silvestre, pi.
58, we have numerous paragraphs indicated by the projec-
tion of the first letter, or the first two or three letters, into
the left-hand margin ; and, for the most part, this initial is
of considerably larger size than the rest of the letters.
This, however, is not a book manuscript.
(5) " Further," says Mr. Burgon, " Cod. K abounds in
such contractions as ^I^, '^^^ (with all their cases), for
av^pcjiTOUf ovpavodf CtC. Not Only Tr«, 7r///>, ^t/\ ..,,.., f,,hi (tOT irvev/ia,
irarrjp'refi-Tepa^ fiTjTtpaft but alsO arpxir/^ /;//, it/'/j/u^ lOT aravpu-^r)^ iapaTi\
upovaa/j/u.
** But Cod. B, though familiar with m, and a few other
of the most ordinary abbreviations, knows nothing of these
compendia : which certainly cannot have existed in the
earliest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable to
suppose that their constant occurrence in Cod. K indicates
for that Codex a date subsequent to Cod. B.*'
Here, Mr. Burgon, as usual, misstates the facts. The con-
traction for avdpuinoa is found in the Vatican MS., p. 137,
col. I ; p. 146, col. 2 ; p. 160, col. i ; that for 'Kvoiun occurs
twice on the first page of the New Testament (Matt. i. 18,
20), also Matt. iii. 11, 16, iv. i, and often elsewhere, par-
ticularly in the Old Testament (five times, for example,
p. 33 1> col. I, and again twice in col. 2); ^>a for ^arepoo
occurs p. 69, col. I ; p. 190, col. 3 (marg. note) ; p. 226, col. 2 ;
uiX for lapar^x occurs hundreds of times : for instance, in
THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 1 49
Exod. xiv. it is contracted sixteen times out of seventeen
in which it occurs, and in Josh. xi. eighteen times out of
twenty.* It will be hard to find *'i;/>^" as the contrac-
tion for upovaaAvfi in the Vatican MS. or in any other, but
uJiii occurs Josh. xii. lo, and ///T, Josh. x. i, 3, xv. 5. iravput^ff
is contracted but once in the Sinaitic MS., where we also
have once (in Rev. xi. 8) a unique contraction of ea-avpu'dTj,
which Tischendorf has neglected to express in the text of
his quarto edition, though he has spoken of it in the Pro-
legomena (p. XX. ; compare the larger edition, vol. i., col. 8,
of ProL).
In this matter of contractions, much appears to have
depended on the fancy of the scribe ; and, as a criterion
of antiquity, it must be used with caution. We find in
the Vatican MS. contractions for several words, as Km, fiov,
n%rQpLjrT0Cf vtoa, fir/Tf/f), ovpavoa, fiaveu^ tapa?//, lepovca/jjUy which are never
contracted in Codex D (the Cambridge MS.), written two
centuries later. In the papyrus MS. of Phifodemus, "De
Deorum vivendi Ratione," published in vol. vi. of the
Hcrcnlancnsia Voluminay and consequently written as early
as A.D. 79, we find a number of remarkable contractions
not known to exist in any other Greek MS., or certainly in
any of similar antiquity. In differe,nt parts of the Vatican
MS. there is a marked diversity in this respect; for exam-
ple, in the part of the MS. extending from i Kings xix. 11
to the end of Nehemiah, as compared with the preceding
portion.! The same is true of the Sinaitic MS., particu-
larly in the six leaves of the New Testament which Tischen-
dorf attributes to the scribe D, whom he now supposes to
be idjfitical "With, one of the scribes of the Vatican MS. For
• In a single column of the Vat. MS. (p. 711, col. 2), we find the contractions avov
ovvov, JTVOf iT^Tffi, "ni/.y all of which Mr. Burgon says are ncvor found in it. See also
avoq^ pp. 6;hb, 753b; avQt\ PP- 753^. 75^^ 823b; avin\ pp. 75^. 762b, 824b; a v o i,
p. «<>j»; avQt'f, p. 773^. So Tr~f)Y, PP 783^ 808^, 8990, 93«*; m\ PP- 707^. 753^; xV,
p. 761*. For r/,jffi^ see also pp. 675*, 689b, 711b, y5,a, 764b, 765a, 768a, 913b ; for i/M, pp. 763b,
930*. We find also the contraction dad, pp. 33»*i 334*. 334*^. 4«4«» (*«), 7500.
tin the ^t two hundred and ninety-four pages of the Vatican MS. (pp. 41-334 of the
edition), TTVtVfja occurs forty-two times, in forty of which it i* contracted ; in the next two hun-
dred aiMl ninety pages, it occurs forty-one times, in forty of which it is nof contracted. There
is a nmilar difference of usage in respect to the contraction of the word icpajf/..
150 CRITICAL ESSAYS
example, in fol. 15 of the Sinaitic MS., written by D, v'.oo
(sing.) occurs five times, and is always written in full. In
the contiguous leaves (14 and 16), written by A, it occurs
nine times, and is always contracted. On fol. 15, av^poTrwr
is written six times in full, once only contracted. In the
contiguous leaves it occurs eleven times, and is always con-
tracted. In fol. 10, written by D, ovpavoo occurs nine times,
and is always written in full, as it seems to be in the Vati-
can MS. On the next leaf, written by A, it occurs ten
times, and in six of them is contracted. (The statement in
Tischendorf s iVjv. Test. Vat., Prol. p. xxii., differs from the
above in four particulars, in consequence, apparently, of
oversights in counting.)
(6) Mr. Burgon*s sixth argument is founded on the follow-
ing facts. The Gospel of Mark in the Vatican MS., as well
as the Sinaitic, ends with verse 8 of the sixteenth chapter.
But in the Vatican MS., where the ending occurs near the
bottom of the second column, the third column is left blank,
and the Gospel of Luke begins on the next page. "This,"
says Mr. Burgon, "is ///.• only vacant column in the whole
manuscript" (p. S7). In the Sinaitic MS., in which there are
four columns to a page, the Gospel of Mark ends on the
second, and that of Luke begins on the third. The Vatican
MS. has at the end of verse 8 the usual arabesque which
is placed at the end of a book, and the subscription Kara
Ma/Mor. But the phenomenon of the blank column is, to Mr.
Burgon, " in the highest degree significant, and admits of
only one interpretation. The older MS,, from which Cod.
B was copied, must have infallibly contained the twelve
verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them
out — and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank space in
mevwriani rci'' (p. Zj). The Sinaitic, on the other hand,
"was copied from a Codex which had been already muti-
lated '* (p. "ZZ), This difference between the MSS. seems to
Mr. Burgon "a very striking indication that Cod. B is the
older of the two. Cod. X is evidently familiar with the
phenomenon which astonishes Cod. B by its novelty and
strangeness " (p. 292).
THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 151
Eusebius, in the first quarter of the fourth century, ex-
pressly testifies that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of
Mark were wanting "in the accurate copies" and "in almost
all the copies " of that Gospel, but were found " in some
copies." {QucBst. ad Marinum^ c. i. Opp. iv. 937, in
Migne's Patrol, Gr, torn, xxii.) Suppose, then, that the
Vatican MS. was transcribed in the age of Eusebius from a
copy which contained the passage, why may not the Sinaitic
have been transcribed at the same time from one which did
not contain it }
With Mr. Burgon, a conjecture seems to be a demonstra-
tion. There is to him but one possible explanation of that
blank column. But, considering the well-known tendency
of copyists and possessors of MSS. to add rather than to
omit, — a tendency which would be very strong in the pres-
ent case, in consequence of the abruptness of verse 8 as an
ending, and of which the existence of another ending be-
sides the disputed verses is a proof, — another conjecture may
be proposed. Why may we not suppose that the exemplar
from which the Vatican MS. was copied did not contain the
last twelve verses, but the copyist, or owner of the MS.,
having at some time seen or heard of them, left on that
account the blank column in question } We have a similar
phenomenon in the case of Codices L and a at John vii. 52,
and in Codex G at Rom. xiv. 23.
Mr. Burgon is not strictly correct in saying that the case
to which he refers is "the only vacant column" in the Vat-
ican MS. Two columns are left blank at the end of Nehe-
miah ; but this may be accounted for by the different style
(stichometric) in which the next following book, the Psalms,
is written.*
(7) Mr. Burgon's last argument is as follows : " The most
striking feature of difference, after all, is only to be recog-
nized by one who surveys the Codices themselves with at-
tention. It is that general air of primitiveness in Cod. B
•A column aiid ahalf are al«o left blank at the end of the Book of Tobit (p. 944), presenting
an appearance remarkably similar to that «»f the end of the Gospel of Mark. This may be,
r, became it is on Uie last leaf of the quinion, or quire.
152 CRITICAL ESSAYS
which makes itself at once fch. The even symmetry of the
unbroken columns; — the work of the prima mauus every-
where vanishing through sheer antiquity; — the small, even,
square writing, which partly recals the style of the Hercula-
nean rolls, partly the papyrus fragments of the 'Oration
against Demosthenes* (published by Harris in 1848): — all
these notes of superior antiquity infallibly set Cod. B before
Cod. X; though it may be impossible to determine whether
by fifty, by seventy-five, or by one hundred years."
On this, we may remark: {a) That "the even symmetry of
the unbroken columns " has been shown to exist, so far as
a large part of the MS. is concerned, only in Mr. Burgon's
imagination ; and that, where it does exist, it has a parallel
in parts of the Sinaitic. {b) The work of the prima mantis
is rarely to be seen in the Vatican MS., a scribe of the
tenth or eleventh century having retraced all the letters
with fresh ink, adding accents and breathings, except in
those places where he wished to indicate that something
should be omitted {e.g., the accidental repetition of a word
or sentence). In the passages where the work of the first
hand remains untouched, of which we have fac-similes (e.g,,
John xiii. 14; Rom. iv. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16), the original
writing appears to have been well preserved. We may add
that a scribe of the eisfhth or ninth centurv has retouched
with fresh ink many pages of the Sinaitic MS. ; and this had
already been done to a considerable extent by a still earlier
scribe (Tischendorf, N. T. ex Sin. Cod. p. xxxviii. f.). As
to the appearance of the Sinaitic MS., we have the tes-
timony of Dr Tregelles that, ** though the general sem-
blance of the whole work is somewhat less worn than that
of Cod. Vaticanus (whose extensive hiatus prove how care-
lessly it has been kept), when it comes to be contrasted
with such a MS. as the illustrated Dioscorides at Vienna
(whose age is fixed by internal evidence at about a.d. 500),
that interesting and valuable MS. looks comparatively quite
fresh and modern" (Scrivener's Coll. of Cod, Sin, p. xxxi.).
(c) The writing in the Sinaitic is just as "even and sjuare''
as that of the Vatican. In the form of the letters, Tischen-
THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 153
dorf expressly says that there is not the least difference,
— ne viinitnatn quidcin discrepantiam {Nov. Test. Vat. p.
xix.). Mr. Burgon's argument, then, must rest wholly on
the difference in size, the letters in the Vatican MS. being
perhaps one-third smaller than those in the Sinaitic. (There
is a difference in size in different parts of the two MSS.
themselves, as is shown by the fac-similes and by Tischen-
dorf's express testimony.) It is difficult to deal seriously
with such an argument; but, if any explanation is needed,
it may be suggested that the extraordinary size of the skins
on which the Sinaitic MS. is written, allowing four columns
to a page, of forty-eight lines each (the Vatican has three
columns of forty-two lines), would naturally lead a callig-
rapher to make letters somewhat larger than usual. And,
if Mr. Burgon will look again at a few of the Hcrctdanensia
Volumituiy say the one last published (vol. v. of the second
series), he will find that in some of the papyri there repre-
sented we have letters of the size of those in the Codex
Sinaiticus, while in others they are less than half that size.
Such are " the notes of superior antiquity " which " infal-
libly " prove that the Vatican MS. is fifty or one hundred
years older than the Sinaitic.
A few words may be added in respect to Mr. Burgon's
treatment of the principal subject of his work. The speci-
men which has been given illustrates some of his prominent
characteristics as a writer; but, judging from this alone, we
might do him injustice. His book is to be welcomed as
giving the results of earnest original research on the sub-
ject to which it relates. It brings to light many interesting
facts, and corrects some errors of preceding scholars. It
is written, however, with great warmth of feeling, in the
spirit of a passionate advocate rather than that of a calm
inquirer. The author appears to have been especially stim-
ulated to the defence of the last twelve verses of the Gospel
of Mark by his zeal for the damnatory part of the Athi-
nasian Creed, which he not only regards as justified by Mark
154 CRITICAL ESSAYS
xvi. i6, but actually identifies with that verse. H : says :
"The precious ivxnmtg clause , . . (miscalled 'damnatory'),
which an impertinent officiousness is for glossing with a
rubric, and weakening with an apology, proceeded from
Divine lips, — at least, if these concluding verses be gen-
uine" (p. 3). This is only one of many examples which
might be cited of the tendency of Mr. Burgon to confound
the certainty of a fact with the certainty of a very dubious
or even preposterous inference from it. For the new crit-
ical material which he has amassed, every student will thank
him, and also for the clear and satisfactory discussion of
some special topics, as the so-called Ammonian sections ;
but there is much in his book which cannot fail to mislead
an unwary or ill-informed reader. His conclusions are often
strangely remote from his premises, but his confidence in
them is boundless. He not only claims to have shown that
the genuineness of the disputed passage " must needs be
reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain," but
appears to expect that in consequence of his labors " it will
become necessary for Editors of the Text of the New Tes-
tament to reconsider their conclusions in countless other
places, ... to review their method, and to remodel their text
throughout " (p. 254). This seems indeed a sad prospect for
Tischendorf and Tregelles and Westcott and Hort, who have
so utterly mistaken the true principles of textual criticism ;
but a careful examination of Mr. Burgon's book will greatly
relieve the anxiety of their friends.
V.
THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF.*
[From the UHttariam Review and Religious Magazine for March, 1875.]
The death of Professor Tischendorf at Leipzig, Dec. 7,
1874, after a lingering illness of a year and a half from a
stroke of paralysis, deserves more than a cursory notice.
The loss to Biblical learning is, in some respects, irrepara-
ble ; for he left unfinished important works, which can
hardly be completed by any successor. The amount, how-
ever, of what he did accomplish is marvellous ; and we can
hardly be surprised that even an exceptionally strong physi-
cal constitution should have suddenly given way under the
strain of such intense and unremitting activity. A brief
sketch of his life, and an enumeration of his chief publica-
tions, will show how great are his claims to the gratitude of
all Biblical scholars.
Lobegott (Latinized, Aenotheus) Friedrich Constantin
Tischendorf was born at Lengenfeld, in Voigtland, a district
of Saxony, Jan. 18, 1815. After five years of preparatory
study at the Gymnasium in Plauen, he entered the Univer-
sity of Leipzig in 1834, devoting himself to the study of the-
ology and philology. Here, in 1836, he won a prize for an
essay entitled ** Doctrina Pauli Apostoli de vi mortis Christi
satisfactoria," which was printed in 1837. In 1838, he pub-
lished a volume of poems called Maihiospen, ** May-buds."
These buds do not seem to have blossomed, though one of
the poems had the honor of being set to music by the great
• Ctnaianiin Titchtndorf in uiner J^kn/undamamif^iihrigen schri/tsttlleriscfun H^irk-
$aink*U. Literar-historische Skizze von Dr. Joh. Ernst Volbeding. Leipzig: C. F. Fleischer.
1863. 8to. pp. y\., 98.
BHlagt Mmr AUg^nuinen Evang.'Luth. Kircktnuitung^ Nr. 50. Leipzig, d. 11. Decem-
ber, 1874.
156 CRITICAL ESSAYS
composer Mendelssohn. In 1838, he signalized the close of
his university studies by another prize -essay, ** Disputatio
de Christo pane vitae," an exegetical and doctrinal disserta-
tion on John vi. 51-59, published in Leipzig in 1839. After
receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Univer-
sity, he spent a year and a half in teaching, near Leipzig,
and in this period, besides translating one or two small
works from the French, tried his hand at a novel entitled
Derjunge Mystikcr^ **The Young Mystic,'* published under
the pseudonym of "Dr. Fritz.'* In October, 1839, ^^ ^^'
turned to Leipzig with the purpose of preparing a critical
edition of the Greek Testament, and entered in earnest upon
those labors to which the remainder of his life was devoted.
Here he published, in 1840, an essay on Matt. xix. 16 ff.,
the first-fruits of his studies in textual criticism, and a disser-
tation on the so-called Rcc:nsi)ns of the text of the New
Testament, with particular reference to Scholz*s theory,
which he effectually demolished. His first edition of the
Greek Testament appeared at Leipzig with the date 1841,
though the volume was printed before the end of the year
1840. It was a convenient manual, giving the various read-
ings of the Received Text, Knapp, Scholz, and Lachmann,
with the more important authorities, and showing, on the
whole, good critical judgment. The essay on Recensions,
confuting Scholz's theory, was reprinted in the Prolegomena,
and is the most valuable part of the book. The edition was
favorably received as a work of promise, being warmly wel-
comed, especially by the veteran critic, David Schulz.
In preparin;^ this edition, Tischendorf was struck with the
defectiveness of our knowledge of even the most important
MSS. of the New Testament, excepting the very few whose
text had at that time been published. This deficiency he
determined to do his best to supply, as the first essential
condition of improvement in New Testament criticism. 'He
proposed to visit the chief libraries of Europe for the pur-
pose of making accurate copies or collations of all the uncial
MSS. of the New Testament. But he was wholly desti-
tute of the pecuniary resources required for such an enter-
THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 1 57
prise. At last, through great exertions on the part of the
theological faculty of Leipzig, represented by such men as
Winer, Illgen, and Niedner, seconded by Von Falkenstein,
the Minister of Public Instruction, he obtained from the
government of Saxony a subsidy of one hundred thalers for
two successive years ; other necessary funds he could only
raise by pledging a life-assurance policy for the repayment
of a small loan ; and when, finally, he set out for Paris, in
October, 1840, he was so poor that, to use his own words, he
was unable to pay for the cloak which he wore, — ** tam pau-
per . . . ut pro paenula quam portabam solvere non possem"
{N. T, 1859, Psi^'s I.> p. viii.).
At Paris, he made it his first object to copy with the great-
est care, and prepare for publication, the celebrated Ephraem
MS. of the fifth century, a palimpsest extremely difficult to
decipher, and which had been but very imperfectly collated.
The New Testament part of this MS. was published at Leip-
zig in 1843, i^ ^ splendidly printed volume, with excellent
Prolegomena; the Old Testament portion appeared in 1845.
Tischendorf's edition of this MS. was a most important ser-
vice to Biblical criticism, and gained for him, in 1843, ^he
honorary degree of Doctor of Theology from the University
of Breslau. While at Paris, besides collating thoroughly or
copying other important MSS. of the New Testament, as
K, L, M, of the Gospels and D (CoJex Claromontanus) of
the Pauline Epistles, he prepared (in 1842), at the instance
of the celebrated publisher Firmin Didot, two editions of the
Greek Testament. One of th:3se was designed particularly
for the use of Catholics, the Greek text being conformed, as
far as any MS. authority would allow, to the Latin Vulgate,
with which it was printed in parallel columns, forming one of
the volumes of Didot's Library of Greek Authors. By way
of ofiEset to this " Catholic edition,'* which was dedicated to
Affre, Archbishop of Paris, and the Greek text of which was
also issued separately, he published another dedicated to
Guizot, containing a text substantially the same as that of
his Leipzig edition, but without the Prolegomena and critical
authorities. By these publications, and by further aid from
the government of Saxony, and the liberality of private
friends, he obtained the means of widely extending his trav-
els for the collation and collection of MSS.
At this point, it will be convenient to give a synopsis of
the various journeys taken by Tischendorf for critical pur-
poses, from first to last. More than eight years were spent
in these travels. His chief objects were the collation or
copying for publication of all the important uncial Greek
MSS. of the Xew Testament and of the Septuagint that had
not already been published ; the collation of MSS. of the
Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, and of the
pscudcpigrapha of the Old Testament ; and the collection of
materials for a work on Greek paljeography. He gave spe-
cial attention, moreover, to important unpublished MSS. of
the Old Latin version and the Vulgate, and collated for the
use of Grossmann all the MSS. which he could find of the
writings of Philo of Alexandria, a new critical edition of
which is so much needed. For these purposes, in the years
1841-44, he not only spent a long time at the Royal Library
in Pads, but visited the libraries of Utrecht, in Holland;
London, Oxford, and Cambridge, in England ; Basle, in Switz-
erland ; Carpentras, in France; and Rome, Florence, Naples,
Venice. Modena, Verona, Milan, and Turin, in Italy; and,
after his return from his first Eastern tour, explored, at con-
venient seasons, the libraries at Vienna, Munich, Dresden,
Hamburg, and Wolfenbiittel. in Germiny; Ztirich and St.
Gall, in Switzerland ; and St. Petersburg and Moscow, in
Russia, — the last named city being visited by him in 1868.
England he revisited for critical purposes in 1849, 1855, and
1865 ; Paris, in 1849 and 1S64; and Rome and Naples, in
1866, — using for such excursions the vacations which re-
lieved him from his labors at the University of Leipzig,
where in 1845 he was made Professor Extraordinary, in
1850 Honorary Professor, and in 1859 Ordinary Professor of
Theology and Biblical Paleography, the latter professorship
having been founded expressly for him.
Tischendorfs great acquisitions of uev.' MS. treasures
THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 1 59
were made in his three journeys to the East, undertaken
in 1844, 1853, and 1859, ^^ which he visited Egypt, Sinai,
Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece, bringing home
most valuable collections of Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic,
Hebrew, Samaritan, and other Oriental MSS. His expenses
in the first two journeys were largely defrayed by the govern-
ment of Saxony ; and the greater part of the MSS. collected
were accordingly transferred to the library of the Univer-
sity at Leipzig, though som2 were sold to the British Mu-
seum, others to the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The third
journey, memorable for the discovery of the world-renowned
Sinaitic MS., was prosecuted under the auspices of the Rus-
sian government ; and the rich manuscript collections ob-
tained are deposited in the Imperial Library at St. Peters-
burg. The great prize secured in the first journey, in 1844,
was the forty-three leaves of a MS. of the Septuagint, of
the fourth century, which Tischendorf rescued from a waste-
basket in the monastery of St. Catharine at Mount Sinai,
and published in 1846, in lithographed fac-simile, under the
title Codex Friderico-AugnstanuSy in honor of his royal
patron, Frederick Augustus H. of Saxony. This proved
afterwards to be a part of the famous Codex Sinaiticus dis-
covered in 1859. Tischendorf published an interesting pop-
ular account of his first Oriental journey in two volumes
(1845-46), entitled Reise in den Orient, translated into Eng-
lish, London, 1847 \ ^^<i of ^he third, with the title Aus dcm
heiligen Lande^ in 1862. The latter has been translated
into French and Swedish. The MS. treasures secured in
these journeys are described in his Anecdota Sacra et Pro-
fana (1855, second edition, enlarged, 1861) and Notitia Codicis
Sinaiticiy etc. (i860). The whole story of the Sinaitic MS.
is told in a very interesting pamphlet entitled Die Sinaibibei
litre Entdeckung, Herausgabe, und Enuerbung, (** The Sinai
Bible; its Discovery, Publication, and Acquisition.") Leip-
zig, 1871.
We will now take a view of the principal publications of
Tischendorf, in which the fruits of these researches have
l6o CRITICAL ESSAYS
been given to the world. They mostly fall into three classes:
first, Editions of MSS. of the New Testament and the
Septuagint ; second, Editions of the Greek Testament and
o' the Septuagint ; third, Editions of Apocryphal Christian
Writings.
I. Of the first class, we have already noticed the editions
of the Ephraem MS., published in 1843-45, ^tnd the Codex
Friderico-Augustanus, 1846. Ne.xt comes the MouHtnciita
Sacra Incditay 1846, a large quarto volume, containing the
text of the important MS. L of the Gospels, and six others,
F', N, W% Y, 0* of the Gospels, and B of the Apocalypse ;
then the ** Evangelium Palatinum," 1847, being the remains
of a MS. (fourth or fifth century) of the Old Latin version,
with a remarkable text ; the Codex Bobbiensis, another
important MS. of the Old Latin, of about the same date,
published in the Wiener Jakrbiichcr, 1847-49; ^^^ New
Testament part of the Codex Amiatinus, supposed to be
the oldest MS. of the Latin Vulgate (1850, new edition
1854); the Codex Claromontanus (D), a very important
Graeco-Latin MS. of the Epistles of Paul, of the sixth cen-
tury (1852) ; and, finally, the great Sinaitic MS., published at
St. Petersburg, in magnificent style, in facsimile type, in
four folio volumes, in 1862, glorifying the millennial anniver-
sary of the founding of the Russian Empire. Of this splen-
did work, three hundred copies were printed, two hundred of
which were distributed by the Russian government, as pres-
ents, to eminent personages or public libraries, while one
hundred were given to Tischendorf for sale, the price being
fixed at two hundred and thirty thalers. A smaller edition,
containing the New Testament portion, with the Epistle of
Barnabas and a part of the ** Shepherd " of Hermas, in ordi-
nary type, but representing the MS. line for line, and with
improved Prolegomena, was published in quarto, at Leip-
zig, in 1863; and in 1865 appeared Novum Tcstamcntnm
Gracce ex Sinaitico Codicc, with the variations of the Re-
ceived Text and of the celebrated Vatican MS. in the mar-
gin, to which was added a supplement of corrections in 1870.
For critical purposes, this last edition does not entirely take
THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF l6l
the place of that of 1863; but the Introduction is fuller,
and it is a convenient and useful book. In 1867, Tischen-
dorf published his Novum Tesiamcntuin Vaticanum, giving
the text of the New Testament part of the famous Vatican
MS. (B) far more correctly than it had been published by
Cardinal Mai. But he was not allowed to examine the MS.
long enough to edit it in a perfectly satisfactory manner,
though the forty-two hours spent upon it were turned to
wonderfully good account. His Appendix Njvi Testainenti
Vaticani, published in 1869, after the appearance of the
splendid Roman edition, corrected a few errors which, under
the circumstances, were inevitable, and also gave us for the
first time a correct edition of the MS. B of the Apocalypse.
A sharp pamphlet, entitled ** Responsa ad Calumnias Roma-
nas" (1870), may be regarded as another supplement to this
edition. In 1867, Tischendorf also published Appendix Cod-
icum celcberrimorum Sinaitici Vaticani Alexandrini^ contain-
ing a few fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus found in the
binding of certain MSS., twenty select pages of the Vati-
can MS. printed line for line, and a careful edition, from the
Alexandrine MS., of the Epistles ascribed to Clement of
Rome, which have been preserved in that MS. alone, and
had before been inaccurately edited. The Prolegomena to
this volume, and to the Novum Testamentnm Vaticanum,
are valuable, as giving the results of a special study of the
palaeographical characteristics of the Vatican MS. Tischen-
dorf comes to the remarkable conclusion that one of the
four scribes engaged on the Sinaitic MS., and who wrote
six pages of the New Testament portion of it, was identical
with the scribe who wrote the New Testament portion of
the Vatican MS.
It remains for us to notice under this head the new col-
lection of Monumcnta Sacra Inedlta, which was to comprise
nine large quarto volumes, seven only of which had appeared
at the time of Tischendorf's death. Vol. I. (1855) contains
many important palimpsest fragments of both the New Tes-
tament and the Old, and the remarkable papynis MS. in
the British Museum of a part of the Psalms (fourth cen-
l62 CRITICAL ESSAYS
tury?); Vol. II. (1857), among other things, the Nitrian
palimpsest R of the Gospel of Luke (sixth century), and
the Cottonian fragments of Genesis (fifth century), ** saved
so as by fire" ; Vol. III. (i860) gives us the MSS. Q (fifth
century) and W*' of th^ Gospels, and one hundred and thirty-
one leaves of the very important Codex Sarravianus of the
Octateuch (fourth or fifth century); Vol. IV. (1869), the
beautiful Zurich Psalter (seventh century), written in letters
of silver and gold on purple vellum, also the Book of Daniel
from the CoJex Marchalianus (seventh century) ; Vols. V.
and VI. (1865 and 1869), the recently discovered palimp-
sest P of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, Codex Porfiria-
nus (ninth century), — Vol. VI. also containing the Wolfen-
biittel palimpsest P of the Gospels (sixth century) ; in Vol.
IX. (1870) we have the Graeco-Latin MS. E of the Acts,
CoJex Laudianus (sixth century),* with additional portions
of the Septuagint from Codex Marchalianus. Vol. VII. was
to have contained a Wolfenbuttel MS. of Chrysostom, of the
sixth century, and other uncial fragments of Chrysostom,
giving many quotations from the New Testament and the
Old; Vol. VIII., numerous fragments of the Septuagint
and the New Testament from palimpsests and other very
ancient MSS. It is probable that these volumes will still
be published.
II. We come now to Tischcndorf's editions of the Greek
Testament and of the Septuagint. Besides the two (or
three) Paris editions already mentioned, Tischendorf pub-
lished the Greek Testament at Leipzig in twcnty-tzuo edi-
tions, the last {Editio academica octavo) ^ issued just before
his death, bearing the date 1875. Of these, however, be-
sides his youthful essay of 1841, only three possessed dis-
tinctive critical importance, — namely, the second Leipzig
•This MS. was published in 1715 by the celebrated antiquarian, Thomas Heame. The
impression, however, being limited to one hundred and twenty copies, the book had long since
become excessively rar?. Though a small volume, published originally at ten shillings a copy, at
the sale of Dr. Cough's librarj' it fetched at auction twenty pounds. It has occasionally sold for
much less; but both on account of its extreme rarity, and because Hearne's edition was far from
acc.irate (Mie ^ame may be said of Hanseli's publication of its text in 1S64), Tischendorf has ren-
dered an important service to P.iblical criticism by this faithful edition. There is a copy of
Hearne's edition, as well as of Tischcndorf's, in the librar>' of Harvard College.
THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 163
edition of 1849, in which were utilized the critical materials
thus far collected; the "seventh larger critical edition,"
issued in thirteen parts from 1855 to 1858, making two
thick volumes (dated 1859), with a greatly enlarged appa-
ratus, and giving for the first time a clear statement of the
•
evidence both for and against the principal readings ; and,
finally, the "eighth larger critical edition," issued in eleven
parts, the first dated October, 1864, the last published in
1872, completing the text in two octavo volumes (1869-72).
In richness of critical material, this eighth edition far sur-
passed any that preceded it. Among the new sources
drawn from may be mentioned the MSS. collected by Tisch-
endorf in his third Eastern journey, including the Sinaitic ;
the accurate publication of the text of the great Vatican
MS., and also B of the Apocalypse, which had been edited
by Tischendorf in 1846 from a very hurried collation; the
Codex Porfirianus, already mentioned ; Scrivener's careful
editions of the Codex Augiensis and the Codex Bezae, the
former accompanied by a full collation of fifty cursive MSS. ;
Tregelles's edition of the Codex Zacynthius ; and the publi-
cation of the Jerusalem Syriac version of the Gospels by the
Count Miniscalchi-Erizzo. The quotations of the Christian
Fathers are also given much more fully and accurately than
before. Tischendorf must also have derived great advan-
tage from the previous publication of the successive parts
of Tregelles's elaborate edition ; indeed, he seems to have
deliberately delayed the issue of his own Lieferiingen for
the sake of this benefit.
In regard to the text of this last edition, as compared with
its predecessors, it may be observed that the influence of
the Sinaitic MS. is very marked, and that more weight is
attached to a few of the most ancient authorities than was
allowed them in previous editions, especially that of 1859.
Less regard is paid — too little, perhaps, in some cases — to
internal evidence. According to Dr. Scrivener's reckon-
ing (Nov, Test., Cantabrigiae, 1873), the text of the eighth
edition varies from that of the seventh in about three thou-
sand three hundred and fifty-nine places. The true number
tU
CRITICAL ESSAYS
•
is doubtless somewhat larger, as about a hundred variations
are overlooked in Scrivener's collation. iWostof these differ-
ences, however, are of little importance. A part of them
may be ascribed to a modification of Tischendorf's critical
principles since the publication of his seventh edition ; *
others to the nev/ evidence brought to bear on cases where
the authorities were before nearly balanced. In some in-
stances, a natural partiality for the Sinaitic MS. seems to
have led its discoverer to defer too much to its authority ;
but, on the whole, this edition of Tischendorf may be re-
garded as presenting the best text which has yet been pub-
lished. No editor has given clearer evidence of freedom
from theological bias; though, in his adoption of "kingdom
of heaven," instead of " kingdom of God," in John iii. 5, it
may be feared that the desire to nullify a weak argument
of the Tiibingen critics against a supposed reference to the
passage by Justin Martyr has turned the scales of his crit-
ical balance in opposition to the real weight of evidence.f
Accompanying the seventh large critical edition (1859)
there was issued a smaller. "Editio septima critica minor,"
in a single volume, the Prolegomena and critical apparatus
being much abridged. The Ersfc- Hdlftc of a similar abridg-
ment of the eighth critical edition was published in 1872,
but I am not aware that it has been completed. J
Ihc lhr« muual cditioDi publuhEd in 1S7J. dcunbol I
ing " {.lack IHr.girtm SckmtnktH), he hu idapled '
tAiTiiehendorfbaipabi
IV be a GanveoieDci
:)an>. Keidio]n ihil. " ilw tone mw
ibmniially ilw principla ol Benilcyuid
■l4ltr Evanr.HiidAfHUitUtn^P- '1.
.nedi'ion (pp. So.-
0 the «
id,(h>
•islgr be pUied out anabuned,— cuei in irhich tbi mtti ihow Ihit ■ cMiun chusi 1
iDlendecl, ttbicb, tbrouftb uoie avenifht. wu not Bclmlly midfe. A cooiuiBrJibte number of luch
muukes occurred ia ihe eirliei /aiCKvii, ud 6ve ID Ibli Are correcwd by Tiichendoii hJDueJE
ia the brief Mmponry preface 10 lol. ii, ; bal olben will be louTid u latlovn ; R». II. in, lar
^Xclii rod ^dJJjtv ; iii. 4. for b>jya ixti( "^ ix"^ ohyii ; 1. B. (or ai tiaiv re*i
& doiv; ^i' tit ff Til dfiivv mi Tov6piivav\ »- 1 ■ . omii (iri befcre ift.f oiii ; xi. ii, tnii
rd; before rpeic; n.lm ^vlit layatjp' . . . AfjDicnuradoui'w /"Jii^JJC . . . lijnw/Jc;
ni. i«, for Trjii Kr^iju nti r^nr^J.^c; iril. 1, omii ruvboih before and ifier (iWruw;
imlL fl, lor niavaaiiaiv read Kf-al-aovrai. A bid nii>;>rim, becaute n ■! inunediiiely obnewi,
k ibe nbRilntion of ifiiy iot ///ue in Heb. Tii. 16. repeated Irooi the edition of iSp), Obvioas
niiprinti will be found in the lexl in Rev. xvZ. h. iriii. n.m. 19. A lonn liit nipthi beg)T«
of tnon in the noUi In ihii edition ; bnl, in inch a Riu''iiiltcity n( ninule delalli, oieniihti ire
niTit ZvrUt //H'/it. compietlngihe war)
leiredintSTT'J
THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHE.VDORF 1 65
Of Tischendorf s minor editions, we may notice first, as
most important, the Novum Testamentuvi triglottnm, pub-
lished in 1854; new edition, "cum triplici tabula terrae
sanctae/' 1865. This contains, in parallel columns, (i) the
Greek text of his edition of 1849, slightly revised, with the
variations of the Received Text and other noticeable read-
ings in the margin ; (2) the Latin Vulgate critically edited,
chiefly from the Codices Amiatinus and Fuldensis (gener-
ally supposed to be the two oldest MSS.),* with the varia-
tions of the Clementine Vulgate in the margin ; and (3)
Luther's German translation, carefully printed from the
edition of 1545, with occasional corrections from other edi-
tions published in Luther's lifetime. The Greek text was
also issued separately, as an Editio acadcmica, often re-
printed,— in the seventh edition (1873) from the text of
Tischendorf s last critical edition ; it was also published,
accompanied by the Latin or the German, as a diglott ; and
the Latin and German texts were also themselves issued
separately. Each division has its appropriate Prolegomena,
or introduction. The Latin part is specially valuable as the
nearest approximation to a really critical edition of Jerome's
version of the New Testament which has yet been pub-
lished ; and the German part is valuable, as the popular
editions of Luther's version contain many unauthorized
changes of his text, the famous passage, for example, of
the three heavenly witnesses (i John v. 7, 8) having been
interpolated in his translation about thirty-six years after
his death, and appearing in nearly all the editions issued in
the three following centuries. Tischendorf, in his Prole-
gomena, denounces with just indignation this falsification of
Luther's text.
After the issue of the critical edition of 1849, its text was
reproduced, with slight modification, in a stereotyped man-
ual edition of octavo size, published by Tauchnitz in 1850,
the variations of the Received Text being given in the
'The date (A.D. 541) assigned to the Codex Amiatinus by Bandini and Tischendorf is
qoestioocd by K. L. F. Hamann in Hilgenfeld's Ztitschr.f. wiss. Tkroi., 1S73, p. 596, on
{TOOfMls wliicfa deserve attention. He refers it to the seventh century. There can be no doubt,
bowerer, of the eTceflencc of its text.
i66
margin. A second edition, with enlarged Prolegomena, but
essentially the same text, was printed in 1862. In 1873,
Tauchnitz published a new edition, Edilio tertia stereo-
typa. Ad edi:io!icm viii. criticam tHaiircm coiifoi-mata.
This gives in the lower margin, together with the readings
of the Received Text, the principal variations o£ the Sinaitic
MS. from the text adopted by Tischendorf. In size and
general appearance, it corresponds to the series of Greek
classical authors published in large octavo by Tauchnitz.
It has twenty-six pages of Prolegomena, which are the more
valuable as the Prolegomena to the large critical edition
have not appeared, and, it is greatly to be feared, were
never written out for publication. A somewhat later man-
ual edition, though bearing the same date (1S73) on the
title-page, was published by Brockhaus, matching in size
and type Tischendorf's edition of the Scptuagint. This
has some advantages over the Tauchnitz edition just de-
scribed. It gives the principal variations of the famous
Vatican MS. as well as the Sinaitic ; and the Prolegomena,
though essentially the same, have received some additions
and corrections. The type, however, is smaller and less
agreeable to the eye than that of the Tauchnitz edition.*
led in ihi Brockhaui edilio
1 DUroif tor niiroicl John
d iftu hat^ti^ ; Hefa. til. a6, lor I'r^Jif nid ijfuv \ ^i.
w.; Jud
I of the u
.^■hODl
„ . . - , "AfOtSi
V liter iKpairv ; )<>. (or ri^ miniiin/v nid t^! xiuoiihiiK.
Obvioua taiiprinti occur in John It. 31, a. in: Acu uiir. i& Ths nini1t« in Luko xtir.t.
Jade i;, and Hib. *IL >6, IR loand alio io tli: Brockhuu edition ind Ih< hhhiS EJilir
acmdtmlta. The Brackhui edition hu ilio inconrMl]' in Jimd iii. S, rirffiuTui' tii(idaiu
(or iaitaeai itt^piirruv, [All [he« ovnrughrm »« corrected in the nuniul ediiioo edited mlh
eiCrrniE care by Dr. Our van Gebhanli and |]iibll>hed by Tiudiniii in iSSi (]d ed. tW*.\ Tbn
ediiinti reproduce! the tut of the Bdilii ttrlU ilmttrM ntenligned al»Te, bat preilm a new
piefice. aod ^ve* at the bolliiin ol the plge (beaideB refenncei 10 parallel pixagei) * collation ot
TiichendorTi l«l with lh°H nl Ttenltu and WolCDlt and Hon. Thiny-ui piE« ol ciitiol
uinoialians are added u Ihe end. Thii edilian ie iuued in two (onni: one giviiig ihE Gmk
alone, the other eihibitlog (he Gieck leiiand Lulher'i tnnslattan on opposite pages. Other ilaie-
nvenli made above it leemi hardly necnilir Io lupplenient by rneolioninj thai llie Pirai Pan ol
ihe ■' ProlegDBiemt 10 Ihc largo niiical edition " appeared in iSlM, prepans! hjDt.C. R. Gr^my
with ttig luiitanceoC Pmf. Abbot, thai the Sjmipiit namgrlUm wai teiuuul in i3;Sand iSSi.
aod that Tischendorl'i Sepluagint ttiched a aiilh editino (wiiti a mpplemenl by Neatlc. ginng a
coUalioD n! Cod. VaL and S.n.) in iWto. Seo Dr. Gregory'i chronological cHilngue ol Ti«hen-
dorf'! poblcationi given in Ihe PmleBom. rp 7-"i. and the anide by Bsnheau m Henot'i
Riat-Eiuyilsfada, etc., ate Aufl., it. tji-iti.i
THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 167
In connection with these editions of the Greek Testa-
ment, we may mention Tischendorf's Synopsis cvangclica^ a
Greek harmony of the Gospels on the tripaschal theory,
with a critical apparatus giving briefly the evidence for the
principal various readings. Of this convenient manual,
three editions were published, — in 185 1 (new impression,
1854), 1864, and 1871. In the edition of 1864, an excessive
regard for his newly discovered Sinaitic MS. betrayed Tisch-
endorf into the adoption of a considerable number of read-
ings which a sober second thought afterwards led him to
reject. Compare, for example, the editions of 1864 and 1871
in Luke xxiv. 13, 21 ; John i. 18.*
Of the Septuagint, Tischendorf published four editions: in
1850, 1856, i860, and 1869. He did not attempt a critical
recension of the text, but reprinted the text of the Roman
or Vatican edition of 1587 with the correction of typograph-
ical errors, noting in the margin the various readings of
the Alexandrine and Ephraem MSS., and of the Codex
Friderico-Augustanus. The text was stereotyped in the
first edition, but in the second and later editions was
added the real Septuagint version of the Book of Daniel
from the Codex Chisianus ; and the Prolegomena in succes-
sive editions were enlarged and improved. In the last
edition, a few pages of the text were reset from the stereo-
type plates, so that in i Sam. xii. 18 to xiv. 9 (wanting in
Codex Alexandrinus) the variations of the Vatican MS. are
given from the recent Roman edition; and in Ps. xlix. 19 to
Ixxix. 1 1 (also wanting in Codex Alexandrinus) the readings
of the Sinaitic MS. are noted. In the preface to this
edition (p. vii.), Tischendorf expressed his intention of
undertaking, after the publication of his Monumciita Sacra
Inedita should be completed, a new edition of the Septuagint,
— "talem qualem litterae sacrae poscunt et per instrumenta
critica perfici licebit," — in which the large mass of impor-
tant materials now at our command should be critically
* The foUowiog errata in the edition of 1871 might give trouble: Prolegomena, p. xxii. 1 70
[L 31 of the sth ed.], \w anU read an ; p. hx. 1. 13 [1. 15 of the 5th ed.]. for 1858 read 1868;
p. 176, text, L IX, for ifiP?j7rovT£g read /3>i;r(n^6f .
1 68 CRITICAL ESSAYS
us€d. This is a great desideratum ; and, now that Tischen-
dorf's foreboding that he might not live to accomplish this
has been unhappily verified, it is gratifying to know that an
eminent English Biblical scholar proposes the same task.*
Promising beginnings of work in this department have
already been made in Germany by O. F. Fritzsche in his
critical editions of the Greek text of Esther, Ruth, and
Judges (Zurich, 1848, 1864, 1867), and especially his excel-
lent edition of the Apocrypha {Libri apocryphi Vet, Test.
Gracce, Lips. 1871), and by P. A. de Lagarde in his Genesis
Graccc, etc. (Lips. i868).t
III. The third important division of Tischendorf's publi-
cations includes his editions of Apocryphal Gospels, Acts,
and Revelations. His Acta Apostolortnn apocryplia was
published in 185 1 ; Evangclia apocrypha^ in 1853; Apo-
calypses apocryphaCy in 1866. For these three volumes,
more than one hundred MSS. were used. Nineteen of
the pieces contained in them had never been published
before, while others were for the first time given in full.
Ample Prolegomena are prefixed to the text, and the various
readings of the MSS. are exhibited in the notes ; but there
is no attempt to supply that illustrative commentary which
renders the unfinished edition by Thilo so valuable. How-
•See the announcement in the IndepetuUnt, Jan. 21, 1S75, p. 11.
t Passing over the more obvious typographical errors in Tischendorf's fourth edition of the
Septuagint, it may be well to point out some mistakes likely to cause trouble. Page viii. 1. 8, for
I M.icc. read 2 Mace. ; p. xxxv., 2d par., 1. 11, for 20 read 10; p. xli., 2d par., 1. 3, deU the
clause beginnina; 4, 3); p. Ivi., 2d pir., 1. 2, for sedecim rsad septetuUcim. Here, as on pp.
Ivii, and cix., Ti*chen;lorf overlooks th» ixoX that the famjus Zirich Pialter was among the
MSS. (namely, Nv). 262) used by Holmes and Parsons in their edition of the Septuagint.
Page xcv. 1. 6, before (Vzi7//> insert ir^eKuf/ : p. cix. 1. 8, for sedecim read srpUndtcim.
Vol. i , Gen. xxv. 30, for iil>//uaror the Roman ei. reads eii'tuarof;'. Gen. xxnii. 11, note, read
yrrffh/Ktv; xxxi. 4S, note that Alex, reads ^/or for t i/(n\ and xliii. 17, hvUfytj-rti for a\'6pEq\
Ex. xxix. 17, for 77(11 read k(u \ 22, for /t' avrfjv read trr' nirijv (one of the /V« corrections in
the Roman ed.); Num. xxvii. 18, for oartr read oc (another p.;n correction); Deut. xi. 10, dele
iv/^/r (another pen correction); xxxii. 39, for a-roKrevfo read uTOKrh'Vu (so Rom. ed. and the
Vat. MS.); 49» for ;j /}r read j //»• : Josh. xvii. 10, for 'Efmiu read 'KofKUU ; i Esdras vi. 24, for
Si'rT(^) read ^vgtcji' ; Jx. 27, note, for ^n\afnn<; read — ar : 2S, note, for ^npdaioq read — af.
Vol. ii , Ps. xix. 9, for arcji^fiu^ir/iiei^ read avof^). (so both the Roman ed. and Sin.; B has
avu)j)('. See Tischendorf's P;olegom. p. xli., note 2; also, Luke xii. 13, in his N. T.)\ civ.
9, note, before k'/ f/jKiron. insert 11; 11, for ;}//(I;i' (misprint in Rom. ed.) read f//^r, with
Sin., Vat., Comp., Aid., etc. ; ex. i. for anr read aai ; cxiii. 23, for /}//f/V (perhaps misprint in
Rom. cd.) read ii/FK\ Nvith Sin. ; cxliii., inscription, for K'ire(h<JKtt read KfirntSidjKEi, with Sin.,
Vat. ; Ezek. xv. 2. for m- read ik: Hab. iii. 17, for yevvr/uaru read yti'f/uara (so Rom. ed.,
Sin., Vat.), and erase foot-note.
THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 169
ever slight may be the intrinsic worth of the productions
thus brought together, they have no little antiquarian inter-
est, throwing much light on the later superstitions and
legends which became current in the church, and serving
by their striking contrast to enhance our estimate of the
value of the canonical writings of the New Testament.
In connection with these editions should be mentioned a
dissertation published by Tischendorf in 1851, entitled De
Evangeliormn apocryphonim Origine et UsUy which received
the prize offered by the Society at the Hague for the Defence
of the Christian Religion. This has long been out of print ;
and the new and greatly enlarged edition, announced about
two years ago as in preparation, we can never hope to see.
A brief essay published by Tischendorf in 1855, Pilati circa
Christum Jiidicio quid Lucis afferaUir ex Actis Pilati^ is
also out of print. A second edition of the Evangelia apocry-
plia was promised by Tischendorf in 1873 \ * ^^d in the pref-
ace to his Apocalypses apocryphae^ p. x., he speaks of various
unpublished documents which he had reserved for a Corpus
Novi Tcstamenti apocryphum. He had also promised, among
other things, an edition of the Testaments of the Tivclvc
Patriarchs from four MSS., including one discovered by him
at Patmos in 1844, **ad tollendam imperfectissimam Grabii
editionem." This would have been very welcome, as the
book is one of the most curious remains of the early Chris-
tian literature, and, even after Mr. Sinker's praiseworthy
labor, greatly needs a new critical edition. It is to be
hoped that Tischendorf's materials may pass into the hands
of some scholar qualified to carry out his plans.
IV. We may now mention some works of Tischendorf s
not belonging to the three classes thus far noticed.
In 1865, he published a small volume, written in a popu-
lar style, entitled Wann wurden unscre Eva)igclicn verfasst ?
("When were our Gospels composed.'*") The reputation of
the author gave it a wide and rapid circulation, a second edi-
tion being called for in two months ; but it was savagely at-
tacked by some of the principal representatives of the more
'[It was completed by Friedrich Wi.brandt, and published in 1S76. 1
'7°
CRITICAL ESSAYS
skeptical school of critics, as Hilgenfeld and Volkmar Iq
the fourth edition of the work, published in IS66, TiscfaeiU
dorf entered into the discussion of the question at issue mud
more fully, reviewing his reviewers, and, it must also I
confesse;], repaying their abusive language in the same coiit*
with interest. In this enlarged edition, the book is one of
the most vigorous of the recent defences of the genuineness
of the Gospels. It has been published, in the longer or
shorter form, in no less than fifteen editions in different lan-
guages, having been translated into English. French, Ital-
ian. Dutch. Swedish, Danish, Russian, and Turkish, The
fourth edition of the original was translated, in this country,
by Rev. William L. Gage, and published by the American
Tract Society in 1S67 or 1868. In simple justice to Tischen-
dorf, it is necessary to say that this translation in many
places sadly misrepresents the original, sometimes com-
pletely reversing the sense, more frequently making non-
sense ; and that important words, clauses, or even whole
sentences are often omitted.*
We may next tike notice of the edition of the authorized
English version of the New Testament, with an Introduc-
tion and various readings from the Sinaitic. the Vatican,
and the Alexandrian MSS., published under the editor-
11 be give
n, TnniUii
on, p. ..((Gemi 65): "lilhe
ucuutios broaghl
icu.nc Uin^oti, . . . ih.i
,.ilge«, . . . amylkineiUt Ikam
enxpiy ii
Fin "an^hinicisc than
" rud
"nolliiiig bu
t" (nichli ill) The wWe
» i. tadly
n the prcud
ing page ip. <'t)do«o« afford <wa>
(limp«ol
n<,« 50 lO:
0 of John
fomid . pl.a in unc of
>a>oi|<u ol Itac Sepiuniinl it » Im timm
.~™l
je»ld.nc
intdioii ihould have prereolcii
laacha
miiuodor-
•undJog dI iho idiainiiic
" nictau '
mnigor .It"
The lui plrt ol ihc Knleoca
IS whidi Ihli tarn
n(tn{Tnn>. p. 70, Gem
.. u) it '
rendered: "
I'rt lk.r. is .w nC lh< Qidtt
. . . wiitA
ctiHiuUi," IK. Whal T.Kl«odor
1 HV* », " N*r Aft n,n * » v/< «« nC il
tnim*,..
CQimc'd," (iHC* amck i/i
mml «'■
. As alien UebaneliungEO . .
.mO).
T«,.t p.
.S..nMeiS7(G.rm. ..6,1
uy«lof
diapuu'T
Trani. p. »4 (Gem nr,
..i>,T.Khondurf ill
uad> to >peak o[ ■■ Gr«k man
(**ji^rt«./i.^>"(!|«i
.r»urc«iDf
luiml rriiiatm. JaA'laiai Hi
' bnng c
lian of 1
bcGotpal
[Tho*. p. loj, Germ, j)), '
Tho cnn
thii iHMlr s/frocidHri. n
Mfl„J^
««*rih<i.
gJdHI Falluinol tbcChurth.i
irmcrf in a
miking miinii« in hit da
G-.f€i,"Uic\ R«d,"Th<
<uol<l>b
c^o(ihcm»»r,»(^<l
Mi/W^/Itaeoldcl
n> of Ihc Pauline Sfi-l/ii
a, Ihc uicniial wards ■' ihey «y '■ ,
auilM|^^H
THp LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 171
ship of Tischendorf by B. Tauchnitz, at Leipzig, in 1869,
as the thousandth volume of the Tauchnitz Collection of
British Authors. Of this, it is said that forty-five thousand
copies were sold in the first year ; and it has undoubtedly
done much to awaken a popular interest in the textual criti-
cism of the New Testament, and to show the need of
a revision of our translation which shall embody its well-
established results. It is to be regretted, however, that the
English text is disfigured by typographical errors, and that
the notes respecting the various readings contain many mis-
takes, especially in reference to the readings of the Vatican
MS. There are also some strange translations, as ** before
all the world,'' Jude 25, for -pd rra^rV rov aiwjof. Whether
these errors are attributable to Tischendorf, or to his
coadjutor, Mr. B. Harris Cowper, may be a question. The
Introduction by Tischendorf, as it appears in the earlier
copies published, is a curiosity in point of style. In later
impressions, it was rewritten.*
In 1868, Tischendorf made a valuable contribution toward
a new edition of Philo in his Philonca, incdita altera^ altera
nunc dcmum ex vctcre scriptura criita. A considerable part
of the treatise " De Septenario sive de Decem Festis "
here appears for the first time ; and the text of other impor-
tant treatises, which had been edited before only in a
very imperfect form by Mangey and Cardinal Mai, is
whole sentence is very badly translated. The same may be said of the sentences immediately
preceding and following. Pages 64, 65 (Germ. 30), the translator makes Tischendorf stultify him-
self by saying that it is " the first half of the second century to which we trace the main origin of
the diverse materials which enter into the canon, and more es:>ecially the Gospels." What
Tischendorf is speaking of is the various readings of the text. The sentence on page 69 (Germ. 34),
beginning " Wh^t a trick.** is full of errors. On th:: sime pa8;e (Girm. 33), the p^ura'.s " Lihme,
Gichtbriichige, uni Bhndgeborene " are translated "^«/ who 7vas bom lam**, palsied, and blind "I
The notes to this sentence and the next are mistranslated, and the first and last sentences of the
preceding note (Trans, p. 242, Germ. 33) are rendered into nonsense. The sime is true of the
first and fourth sentences of note 3S, and the first of note 91 (Trans, pp. 235, 258, Germ. 26, 64).
h multitu le of similar mi-«takes might be pointed out; but thes! are enough to justify a protest
agaitist judgmg of Tischendorf's work by the representation of it which has been given to Ameri-
can readers.
*Tbe first sentence reads as follows in the earlier copies : " A magnificent display of human
intellKt in the Literature of England and America was that which the noble originator ot this col-
lection upired to accomplish, for the benefit of the educated world beyond the native countries of
the Authors represented.*' In later impresMons, it reads: "To place the glorious works which
adorn the literature of England and America within reich of the readers of other countries was
the aim of the noble originator of the ' Tauchnitz Collection.* **
172 CRITICAL ESSAYS
restored from MSS. in the libraries at Rome, Florence, and
Munich. It is greatly to be lamented that Grossmann
should have died without publishing more fully the results
of his life-long study of Philo ; but Tischendorf encourages
us by stating in his preface that a critical edition of this
author has been long in preparation by J. C. W. Otto, whom
he represents as well qualified for the task.
In 1873, Tischendorf published a second edition of the
Epistles of Clement of Rome, already referred to in speak-
ing of his Appendix Codicnm eel,, etc. (p. 161). This may
probably be regarded as presenting the text in its most
authentic form. In the same year, he also completed the
valuable edition of the Latin Vulgate version of the Old
Testament begun by Theodor Heyse, in which the various
readings of the best MS., the Codex Amiatinus, are given
throughout; and still later, in conjunction with S. Baer
and Prof. F. Delitzsch, he published Liber Psalmontm Hebra-
icits et Latinus ab Hieronymo ex Hebraeo converstis (Lips.
1874).
Such, though very imperfectly described, are the princi-
pal literary labors of Tischendorf. VVe have already seen,
under each of the three great classes into which his publica-
tions fall, that he had made preparation for other important
works, several of which, had his health been spared, would
ere this have been given to the world. Besides these, he had
announced for speedy publication a translation of the New
Testament into German from the text of his Greek Testa-
ment, and Reliquiae Graecarum Littcrariim antiquissimai\
containing, with other matter, fragments of Menander,
Euripides, and Dion Cassius, from MSS. of the fourth and
fifth centuries. But what is most to be deplored is, first,
the absence of the Prolegomena to his last critical edition of
the Greek Testament, a want which no other hand can fully
supply ; and, in the second place, the loss of his promised
work on Greek palaeography, for which he had been making
preparation for over thirty years, and which was to be
accompanied with more than one hundred plates of the
THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 1 73
largest size, giving fac-similes of MSS. The best exist-
ing work on the subject, Montfaucon*s Palaeographia Graeca,
was published in 1708; and, though in respect to cur-
sive MSS. it will always be of great value, our mate-
rials, so far as the uncial MSS. and early papyri are
concerned, have been immensely enlarged since his time.
As long ago as 1856, when Tischendorf's practised eye
instantly detected the fraud in the Uranios palimpsest of
Simonides, which had imposed upon William Dindorf and
Lepsius, and came near costing the Berlin Academy five
thousand thalers, he had already critically examined, for
palaeographical purposes, about fifty Greek palimpsests and
more than one hundred and twenty Greek uncial MSS.*
His later researches, especially his third journey to the
East, must have considerably increased his materials. Prob-
ably no scholar in Europe possessed qualifications to be com-
pared with his for the execution of such a worlc
The later portion of Tischendorf's life in its brilliant
success presented a striking contrast with the arduous strug-
gles of his earlier years. His enthusiasm was magnetic ;
his single-hearted devotion to the pursuit of his great ob-
jects, and the proof which he gave of ability as well as zeal,
soon gained him a host of powerful and generous friends,
so that, after the first obstacles were surmounted, he seems
never to have lacked the means for prosecuting his expen-
sive undertakings. Honors were showered upon him from
every quarter: — orders of knighthood, crosses, and other
insignia from many of the governments of Europe , honor-
ary membership in learned societies too numerous to men-
tion ; the degree of Doctor of Laws from the University of
Cambridge, in England, and that of Doctor of Civil Law
from the University of Oxford; so that ''his titles," to
borrow the expression of an unfriendly critic, ''fill half a
page." The king of Saxony, always his friend, made him
Privy Councillor; and finally, in 1869, an imperial ukase,
*S«« Lykurgos's EtUhimungen iiber dtn Simonides-Dindor/schtn Ursnios^ 2te AuH.,
1856, p. 76.
174 CRITICAL ESSAYS
"in recognition of his great scientific merits, and of his
serv-iccs to Russia especially," elevated him to the rank of
an hereditary noble of the Russian Empire, an honor which
was recognized by the government of his own countr}% so that
in his later publications his name appears as " Constantin
von Tischcndorf." Freedom from vanity was not his most
conspicuous virtue, and it may be that "he valued somewhat
too highly such titles and distinctions ; but who shall say
that he did not richly deserve them all ?
It is to be feared that there is no German critic on whom
the mantle of Tischcndorf has fallen. But, in recounting
his achievements, wc cannot fail to associate with him the
name of at least one English scholar. The labors of Dr.
Tregelles, in the department of Biblical criticism, are
second in importance only to those of Tischcndorf. But
we have no space to characterize them here. The services
also of Dr. Scrivener, in accurately editing the Codex
Augiensis and the Codex Bezae, in publishing collations
of about seventy cursive MSS., and in the preparation
of other important works, particularly his Introduction
to the Criticism of the Nciv Testament, deserve most grateful
acknowledgment. And every scholar must look with great
interest for the publication of the long-promised critical
edition of the Greek Testament undertaken by Dr. Westcott
and Mr. Hort, which has been in preparation for more than
twenty years, and may be confidently expected to prove a
contribution to Biblical literature of marked originality and
value. [See Essay IX. below.]
VI.
THE LATE DR. TREGELLES.
[From the Independent for July i, 1875.]
The most eminent English scholar in the department of
textual criticism as applied to the Greek Testament, second
only to Tischendorf in the extent and importance of his
labprs in this field of learning, has after a few months, as
we learn by recent intelligence, followed his illustrious
compeer to the grave. Dr. Tregelles died at his residence
in Plymouth, England, on the 24th of April last, after having
been disabled for about five years by a shock of paralysis,
which literally struck the pen from his hand as he was
revising the concluding chapters of the Book of Revelation.
The circumstances attending his last illness were thus
remarkably similar to those in the case of Tischendorf,
who, though spared to complete the text of his eighth and
most important critical edition of the Greek Testament,
was soon after prostrated by a stroke of apoplexy, followed
by paralysis, and compelled to leave the long-desired Pro-
legomena unwritten. The concluding part of the text of
Tregelles's edition was published in 1872, by the aid of
some of his friends ; but the Prolegomena have not yet ap-
peared. [See page 181, note.]
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (the name is pronounced in
three syllables, Tre-gel-les) was born at Falmouth, in Corn-
wall, England, Jan. 30, 181 3. His parents belonged to the
Society of Friends, and he was for a time connected with
that religious body. Afterward, he became associated with
the Plymouth Brethren, but ultimately disengaged himself
from that sect. He was educated, according to AUibone, at
the Classical Grammar School in Falmouth, from 1825 to
176 CRITICAL ESSAYS
1828; between 1828 and 1834, he was employed in the iron
works at Neath Abbey, Glamorganshire, and afterward
was engaged for a short time in private tuition near Ports-
mouth. Though lacking the advantages of a university
education, he was full of scholarly zeal, and devoted himself
with special earnestness to the study of the Scriptures in
the original languages and some of the oldest versions,
particularly the Syriac. His interest in the study of
Hebrew was shown by his translation of Gesenius's He-
brew Lexicon, published by the Bagsters in 1847, and
by some elementary works, as Hebrew Reading Lessons
(1845), an interlineary Hcbreiv Psalter and Heads of He-
brew Grammar (1852). He had also a share in the prep-
aration of several other important aids to Biblical study,
in some of which his name does not appear, — as The
Englishman* s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance to the
Old Testament (1843), Th: Englishman' s Greek Concordance
to the Nciu Testament (1839), and The English Hexapla,
published by the Bagsters in 1841, for which he wrote
the very valuable " Historical Account of the English
Versions of the Scriptures,** which was prefixed to it on its
first issue. (In later impressions of the work, a different
"Historical Account," less full and comprehensive, was
substituted. The latter is ascribed to the Rev. Christopher
Anderson.)
As early as August, 1838, Dr. Tregelles had formed the
plan of a critical edition of the Greek Testament, to be
founded solely on ancient authorities, and had prepared a
specimen ; but his first published essay in the department
of textual criticism was The Book of Revelation in Greek.
Edited from Ancient Authorities, leith a nciv English Ver-
sion and Various Readings (London, 1844). This work
at once commanded the respect of scholars for the care
and thoroughness with which it was executed, though it
was in direct opposition to the spirit of superstitious rev-
erence which then prevailed in England for the so-called
Received Text. After its publication, Dr. Tregelles de-
voted himself in earnest to the preparation of a critical
THE LATE DR. TREGELLES 1 77
edition of the Greek Testament, the prospectus of which
was issued in 1848. The text was to be formed on the
authority of the oldest Greek MSS. and versions, and the
citations of early ecclesiastical writers, including Eusebius,
with an accurate statement of the evidence, in the case of
all important variations, both for and against the read-
ings adopted. The Received Text was justly treated as
having no authority in itself, and no account was made
of the great mass of cursive MSS. Completeness and
accuracy in the exhibition of the evidence of the witnesses
used were especially aimed at. To this end, Dr. Tregelles
personally collated with extreme care nearly all the known
uncial MSS. in the libraries of Europe of which the
text had not before been published, visiting the Conti-
nent for this purpose in 1845-46, 1849-50, and 1862. He
also collated some specially important cursive MSS., and
the Codex Amiatinus, supposed to be the oldest known
MS. of the Latin Vulgate. In his edition of the Greek
Testament, the text of .the Vulgate is printed from this
MS., the variations of the Clementine edition being given
in the margin. For the Gospels, he collated twelve un-
cials, E, G, H, P, K, M, R, U, X, Z, r. A, and the
cursives i, 33, 69; for the Acts, H, L (formerly G), and 13,
31,61 ; for the Pauline Epistles, D, F, L, M, 17, 37, 47; and
the cursives i and 14 for the Apocalypse. He so marked
the variations that he could produce a copy of every MS.
that he collated, line for line ; he also traced a page of each
in fac-simile. It is very fortunate that all these uncials,
with the exception of Z, the Dublin palimpsest, some parts
of which Tregelles restored by a chemical application, were
also collated independently by Tischendorf, and that Tisch-
endorf and Tregelles compared their notes, taking pains in
cases of discrepancy to ascertain the true reading by careful
re-examination.
Few persons are aware what sacrifices of time, labor,
money, and health, were required for the work thus briefly
described. Of pecuniary remuneration or even reimburse-
ment there was no hope. The price of Dr. Tregelles's
178 CRITICAL ESSAYS
proposed edition (three guineas) was such as to preclude
an extensive sale, and the number of subscribers was
very limited. The work of collating an ancient MS. de-
mands, even under favorable circumstances, the closest at-
tention and unbounded patience. Not to speak of palimp-
sests, as R and Z, the difficulties presented by such a
MS. as D of the Pauline Epistles (Codex Claromon-
tanus), with its numberless alterations by many later hands,
all requiring to be carefully discriminated, can hardly be
estimated. In the case of the very important cursive MS.
numbered 33 in the Gospels, 13 in the Acts, 17 in the
Pauline Epistles, which has been grievously injured by
damp. Dr. Tregellcs remarks : —
In the Book of Acts, the leaves were so firmly stuck together that
when they were separated the ink had adhered rather to the opposite page
than to its own ; so that in many leaves the MS. can only be read by ob-
serving how the ink has set off{-^s would be said of a printed book), and
thus reading the Greek words backward. I thus obtained the reading of
ever}- line from many pages where nothing could be seen on the page
itself. In some places where part of a leaf is wholly gone, from decay,
the writing which was once on it can be read from the set off. — Ac-
count of the Printed Text 0/ the Greek Xew Testament, p. 162.
No wonder that Dr. Tregelles should speak of this MS. as
wearisome to his eyes and ** exhaustive of every faculty of
attention."
One great object of Dr. Tregelles in visiting Rome, in
1845, was to obtain the privilege of collating the famous
Vatican MS. No. 1239 (B). His earnest efforts, however,
were unsuccessful. He was tantalized by being often per-
mitted to look at it, but was not allowed to transcribe any-
thing ; and, if he looked too long, the two prclati, he tells
us, would snatch the book out of his hand. He was de-
prived, of course, of the use of pen, ink, and paper ; but it is
said that he contrived to note some important readings on
his nails.
The only MS. edited by Dr. Tregelles was the Codex
Zacynthius, a palimpsest of great value, belonging to the
THE LATE DR. TREGELLES 1 79
Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in London,
and containing about three hundred and forty-two verses of
the Gospel of Luke. This was published in 1861.
In the extent of his contributions to our stock of critical
material, Dr. Tregelles was far surpassed by Tischendorf,
who, in successive journeys to the East, secured rich MS.
treasures, crowning all with the great discovery of the
Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf*s editions of the texts of
Biblical MSS. published by him for the first time, or for
the first time accurately, comprise no less than seventeen
large quarto and five folio volumes, not counting the Anec-
dota Sacra et Profana and the Notitia Codicis Smaitici.
But Dr. Tregelles did much more than Tischendorf to illus-
trate and enforce the principles on which a critical edition
of the Greek Testament should be based, and to establish,
by what he called "comparative criticism," the right of a
few of the oldest MSS. to outweigh a vast numerical ma-
jority of later authorities. He did far more than any other
writer to overcome the blind and unreasoning prejudice
which existed in England in favor of the textus reccptiis, and
which prized the inaccurate and uncritical edition of Scholz
on account of its demerits. The change of opinion on this
subject in conservative England within the last thirty years
is marvellous, amounting almost to a revolution. The lan-
guage indulged in by Bloomfield in the preface to his Greek
Testament, about the "temerity" of Griesbach, and "his
perpetual and, for the most part, needless cancellings and
alterations of all kinds," would now sound very strange,
unless perhaps from Dr. Burgon or some kindred spirit.
Though the treatises of Prof. Porter and Dr. Davidson, the
works of the Rev. T. S. Green, the articles of Prof. Westcott
and Mr. Hort, and the later editions of Alford's Greek Testa-
ment have contributed to this result, yet to Dr. Tregelles
the credit of effecting the change is pre-eminently due. His
views were presented partly in his Book of Revelation, etc.,
already mentioned, partly in valuable articles in Kitto's
Journal of Sacred Literature, but most fully in his work
entitled An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New
•
l8o CRITICAL ESSAYS
Testament, with Remarks on iti Revision upon Critical
Principles (London, 1854), and his Introduction to the Text-
ual Criticism of the Neio Testament , published, in 1856,
as part of Vol. IV. of Home's Introduction, etc., tenth
edition. These two volumes are far from being superseded
by the later and valuable Introduction of Dr. Scrivener,
who represents a different school of criticism, fighting gal-
lantly for the rights of the cursive MSS., to our better
knowledge of which he has contributed so much. But the
two last works of Dr. Scrivener, compared with his earlier
writings, especially with his Supplement to the Authorized
Version of the New Testament, published in 1845, will show
how great progress even he has made under the influences
to which I have referred. The reaction in favor of the
few very ancient MSS. has, indeed, gone so far that there
seems to be a tendency in certain quarters greatly to over-
estimate the absolute authority of some of the oldest wit-
nesses to the te.xt, and to regard a reading supported by
the Vatican MS. (B), with one or two of its usual allies,
as something to be defended at all hazards. There is also
a disposition to put aside all considerations of internal evi-
dence, and to rest in what may be termed a purely diplo-
matic text. Such a procedure will, undoubtedly, save an
editor a deal of troublesome thinking, and a lovely appear-
ance of consistency may bj preserved ; but in every critical
question wc are bound to inquire what hypothesis will best
explain all the phenomena. Every consideration which may
bear on the matter should be fairly weighed. To shut one's
eyes to internal evidence, or any other evidence, is simply
arbitrary.
After long delays, the First Part of Dr. Tregelles's edition
of the Greek Testament, containing the Gospels of Matthew
and Mark, was issued in 1857; Part II. (Luke and John) in
1861. Soon after the completion of this part, the over-
tasked editor was visited by a stroke of paralysis, and was
for a long time unable to resume his work. Parts III.-V.,
however, were issued in 1865, 1869, 1870; and Part VL
(Revelation), as has already been mentioned, in 1872.
THE LATE DR. TREGELLES l8l
The preparations for this edition have been in part de-
scribed above. It should be added that special pains was
taken to exhibit accurately the readings of the most impor-
tant ancient versions. For the ^Ethiopic, Dr. Tregelles had
the assistance of Mr. Prevost, of the British Museum, and,
for the Armenian, of Dr. Rieu. The quotations of the ear-
lier Christian Fathers were also carefully given from per-
sonal examination. The edition is beautifully and accurately
printed, and the clearness of arrangement leaves little or
nothing to be desired. It has one decided advantage over
that of Tischendorf : — several grades of probability in the
case of different readings are indicated, a reading nearly
equal in value to that in the text being placed in the mar-
gin, etc.
In the Gospels, Dr. Tregelles had not the benefit of the
Sinaitic MS., or the accurate knowledge of the Vatican
which we now possess through the labors of Tischendorf,
Vercellone, and Cozza. In some other respects, his critical
apparatus was less complete than that used for the last
edition of Tischendorf, who, throughout the long-protracted
issue of his eleven Lieferung:n (1864-72), enjoyed the
great advantage of having the successive parts of Dr.
Tregelles's edition published in advance of his own.
It is understood that Dr. Tregelles, before the complete
deprivation of strength which marked the later period of
his illness, dictated notes for the Prolegomena of his Greek
Testament, which, it is hoped, may erelong be published.*
This great work of Dr. Tregelles will not meet all the
demands of the critical student. It ignores a considerable
portion, though not often a decisive portion, of the evidence
for the various readings ; but it is by far the most impor-
tant original contribution which England has made in the
present century to the establishment of a pure text of the
Greek Testament. It is a monument of the most conscien-
tious, disinterested, and arduous labor, prosecuted with
'indomitable perseverance and zeal, under discouraging cir-
• [They appeared (enlarged by extracts from the writings of Dr. TrcKelles) together wnth a
copious coilection of "Addenda and Corrigenda," edited by Dr. Hort, in 1879, as Part VII. of
the Greek Testament.]
l82 CRITICAL ESSAYS
cumstances, for a high end. The author has earned a title
to the warmest gratitude of all who are interested in the
study of the New Testament.
We can only glance at the other publications of Dr. Tre-
gelles. The most important of these is, perhaps, his edi-
tion of the famous Muratorian Cation^ the earliest catalogue
of the books of the New Testament, of which he published
a fac -simile, with copious notes and critical discussions,
Oxford, 1867, 4to. Other writings of his are: Remarks on
the Prophetic Visions of the Book of Daniel (1847), with
notes, and a Defence of its Authenticity^ also issued sepa-
rately (1852) ; Historic Evidence of the Antfiorship and
Transmission of the Books of the New Testament (1852),
a lecture; also, elaborate articles in YJxXXo' s» Journal of Scured
Literature and the Cambridge Journal of Classical and Sa-
cred Philology^ some of which, as those on "The Original
Language of Matthew's Gospel" and "The Jansenists," were
also published independently. He contributed to Smith's
Dictionary of the ^/W^ valuable articles on the "Ancient Ver-
sions'*; and, judging from internal evidence, the general arti-
cles " Manuscripts " and " Palimpsest " in Cassell's Bible
Dictionaryy and the articles on particular MSS., as Alexan-
drian, Augicnsis, Bezae Codex, Claromontanus, Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, etc., in that work, are from his pen.
Dr. Tregelles was a man of great simplicity of character
and deep religious feeling, a devout believer in the plenary
verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and in the doctrines
usually denominated evangelical. For any form of ** ration-
alism " or any deviation from the doctrines which he re-
garded as fundamental, he had no toleration. In translat-
ing the Hebrew Lexicon of Gesenius, he accordingly deemed
it his duty to insert many notes of warning against what he
regarded as perverse and dangerous explanations of particu-
lar passages by that eminent scholar ; and, when the second
volume of Home's ItitrodiictioUy edited by Dr. Davidson,
was issued, he published a solemn protest against its her-
esies. Whether or not his zeal was always enlightened
need not be discussed. It was honest, and not prompted
THE LATE DR. TREGELLES 183
by malevolence. His denunciations were uttered more in
sorrow than in anger.
The great merits and sacrifices of this self-denying
scholar were not wholly unappreciated, though they surely
deserved a wider and warmer recognition than they ever
received. In 1850, the University of St. Andrew's con-
ferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws ; and, during
the latter part of his life, he received from the civil list a
pension amounting to ;£200 per annum. He was invited
to become a member of the British committee for the revi-
sion of the authorized English version of the Bible, though
the failure of his health prevented him from taking part in
the work.
Dr. Tregelles leaves behind him a widow, the sympathiz-
ing sharer of his labors, but no children. Rare, indeed, are
the examples of such patient, unwearied, self-sacrificing devo-
tion to a noble object as his life presents; and ever honored
be his memory 1
VII.
GERHARD VON MASTRICHT.
[From the Unitarian Review for August, 1884.]
[ The extreme thoroughness and conscientiousness of Dr.
Ezra Abbot, in even the smallest matters that came under
his investigation, are in need of no illustration to those who
were well acquainted with him. But those who know of
that strong characteristic only by hearsay will be glad of
an actual example. The following one is quite to the point,
and, besides showing the trouble he habitually took to help
his correspondents, is worthy of permanent record for its
intrinsic interest.
About a year ago, the writer's correspondence with him
— always pretty frequent — had to do with certain doubtful
places in Dr. Eduard Rcuss's Bibliothcca N, T. Graeciy and
the correction of certain errors therein. Among them was
the name by which Reuss designated the editor of a Greek
Testament who is denoted on the title-page by the letters
"G. D. T. M. D." Every one conversant with the subject
knows that the letters stand for *' Gcrhardus dc Trajccto
Mosac Doctor'' \ and the question was whether the '^ dc
Trajccto Mosac'' was a translation from the Dutch or Ger-
man, and what was the shape of the name as the man used
it himself. Rcuss had indexed the name (in the genitive)
simply as ''Gcrhardi." Other late writers, the present
writer among the number, knowing that the place " Trajec-
turn Mosac'' was the Dutch Macstrichty had taken the name
to be " Gerardus (or Gerard) van Maestricht."
Dr. Abbot's final comment was as follows : —
More than a dozen years ago, having charge of the cataloguing depart-
ment in the library of Harvard College, I had occasion to investigate the
]jroper form of the name, and came to the conclusion that it was Ger-
hard von Mastricht. I have now renewed the investigation with the
GERHARD VON MASTRICHT 185
same result. The mistake (found in a very few recent writers) of giving
the surname as Maestricht^ or of translating the ** Gerhardus {or Gerar-
dus) de Trajecto Mosae " by " Gerhard (or Gerard) von {or van) Maes-
tricht," is easily explained by the fact that Maestricht is the old Dutch
form of the name of the place, and also the form commonly found in
English Gazetteers, and would therefore be naturally supposed to repre-
sent the Trajectum Mosae. But this natural inference is false in the
p esent case, and founded on ignorance of the history of the name.
The grandfather of Gerhard von Mastricht was a Dutchman, residing
in Maestricht His family name was 5^ Coning (Paquot), or Sconing
(Mor^ri); his Christian name was Cornelius (that is, his name answered
to the English * Cornelius King'). Being an ardent Protestant, fear of
the terrible Duke of Alva compelled him to flee from his native city to
Cologne, where he dropped his Dutch surname, assuming in its stead
that ot 7fon Mastricht (Mastricht be ng the common German form for the
n^me of the city). This name was borne by his son, Thomas von Mas-
tricht, and by his grandsons, Gerhard and Peter von Mastricht. The
latter, after preaching for some years at Gliickstadt, became Professor of
Hebrew at Frankfurt on the Oder, then (1669) Professor of Theology at
Duisburg, and finally (1677) Professor of Theology at Utrecht, where he
died in 1706. While at Utrecht, he published his most important
works, particularly his Theoretico-practica Thcologia^ under the name
of Petrus van Mastricht. In most catalogues and biographical dic-
tionaries, he accordingly appears under the name van Mastricht, as he
naturally during his residence at Utrecht changed the German von to
van. But in none of the authorities have I ever found his surname
given as M^z^rstricht ; all the Dutch biographies and bibliographies,
Kok, Van der Aa, Kobus, Abkoude and Arrenburg, call him Petrus
van Mastricht. This alone makes it improbable that his brother ever
used the form Maastricht
But the case of Gerhard is much stronger. He never resided in
Holland ; he was always a German, — born at Cologne, Professor at
Duisburg (1669), and afterward (1687-1721) Syndic of Bremen. There
IS not, I think, the slightest reason for believing that he ever spelled
his name Mastricht, and very little for supposing that he ever used van
for von^ though the fact that his brother commonly goes by the name
of van Mastricht has naturally led many to assume that his surname
corresponded. (For the facts stated above, see Paquot, Mt^m. pour ser-
vir d rhist, lit, des dix-sept provinces des Pays-Bas^ tome i. (Louvain,
1 76^, fol.) p. 649 f . )
The earliest authority for Maastricht that I have yet found is
Home's Biblical Bibliography, appended to his Introduction. The
only other writers in which I have seen it are Tregelles {Printed Text,
pp. 73-75X who doubtless followed Home, Westcott (art. New Testa-
ment, in Smith's Diet. 0/ the BiblCy iii. 2134, note a, American edition^.
l86 CRITICAL ESSAYS
who also probably copisd Home or Tregelles, and Reuss (Die Gcsch,
rf. heiliscn Schrifttn N. T.. jte Ausg. (1874), § 407. end, where I con-
ceive that the "v. Maestricht" is simply his translation of the de Tra-
jiclo Masae). He appears to have imagined that Maesiricht was the
birthplace or former residence of our Gerhard, for he calls him a Bel-
gian {Bibliolh., p. 133], which he was not and never was. He even
treats his name as if it were a medieval one, like Adani of Dremen or
Geoffrey of Monmouth or Peter of Clugny, putting him in his Index
under Gerhard, which is as absurd as il would be to put Edniond de
PressensiJ's name in an index under Edmoniinr Alexander von Hum-
boldt's under Alexander, In short, he appears to have known so little
about the man that liis aulhority is worthless. Gerhard, in fact, is
much Uss known than his brother Peter; his name does not appear
in the Biographie uiti'verselU or its SuppUmenl, or in the NowuelU
Biographie giit^ralt (Hoefer), or in the great Diclionnairt iiniversellt
of Larousse, where you find almost everything.
Scrivener is equivocal, giving "Gerhard fi Maslricht" {Inlrod. 2d
ed., p. 177) and "Gerhard Ji Mastricht" (p. 403, and so in his Index).
Davidson, Bibl. Crit. ii., 12Z, has "Gerhard of Mastricht," copying
Marsh's translation of Michaelis, but in his Index he has "Gerhard
of Maestricht."
The authorities on the other aide a,re overwhelming in number, age,
and weight. All the man's contemporaries, all in fact who have written
of him within a hund'ed years of his lime, agree, so far as I can ascer-
tain, in giving his surname as Afaslricht. (Il is possible that there
is some exception in Dutch books ; but I have found none,)
Jac. Hasieus, in the BibUotheca historico-^hiiolo^eo-lheologiat pub-
lished at Bkemek in i;i8. Class I. Fasc. v. p. 69], while Von Maslricht
was living, speaks of him in terms of the highest eulogy, and gives his
name as "Gerh. von Mastricht." Lilienthal, Theologische Bibtiatluc
(1741), p. 77, gives the title of the Ca'alogue of his Library as follows:
"CataloguB Bihlinihecae Gerh. von Maslricht, Syndic! Bremensis, Li-
brorum in quavis facuitate insignium. . , . Brem. 1719. 8." In the
titles of two of his books, published at Duisburg in 1670 and 1677. as
given by Paquot, his name appears as "Gerh. von Maslricht"; in that
of another, Traj. ad Rhen, 1714. as "Gerardus von Maslricht." So
in the lilies cited in P^rennis, Diet, de bibliog. entholigue (1858). I.
col. 86 and III. col. 90. the surname appears as "von Mastricht."
Accordingly, in the BibUotheca realis juridica of Lipenius (1736), pp.
233, 242, 306, his works appear under the name " Gerardus von Mas-
trichl," or "Gerh. von Mastricht" in the Index, and so in Schott's
Supplement to this work (1775), p. 63. So in the General Catalogue
of the Bodleian Library, and in the Calalogus dissertationum aiademi-
carum belonging to that Library, his writings are entered under the
heading "Maslricht, Gerh. von," while those of his brother
GERHARD VON MASTRICHT 187
under " Mastricht, Petrus van." The same is true of the excellent
Catalogue of the Advocates' Library^ Edinburgh^ vol. v. (1877). In the
Cat. . . . van godgeleerde Werken on sale by Frederick Muller at
Amsterdam (1857X No. 3625, the Hist, juris ecclesiastici appears under
the heading "Mastricht, G. von," while his brother's writings stand
under "Mastricht, P. van." C J. Stewart's Catalogue of Bibles and
Biblical Literature^ London, 1849, No. 503, has "Mastricht (G. von)
de Canone Scripturae. . . . Bremae, 1722, Sm. 8vo." In all probability
he has given the name the form which he found on the title-page.
Probably in no catalogue in the world is so much pains taken to
secure accuracy in the representation of names as in the Manuscript
Catalogue of the British Museum, select portions of which are now
in course of publication. The portion extending from D to Dal, in
explaining the initialism " G. D. T. M. D.," gives the name as " G. von
Mastricht"
In the notice of his death, in the Bibliotheca hist.-phiL-theoL Bremen,
1721, iv. 1091, his name appears as **Gerhardus a Mastricht."
I cannot speak from personal inspection of the title-pages of the
juridical or theological writings of this author; it is doubtful whether
any of them are to be found in the libraries in this country; but such
an agreement in the copying of the titles which contain his name in the
works referred to above, corroborated by the form under which they are
entered in the best catalogues, leaves no doubt in my mind that in the
titles themselves the surname appears as " Von Mastricht."
This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in nearly all of the
numerous biographical and bibliographical works which I have con-
sulted the surname is given as Mastricht; generally with von^ less fre-
quently, but often, with van^ and in Latin works often with a or de^ as
the translation of the prefix.
So in the great general biographical or bibliographical works, as
Zcdler's Univ, Lex, vol. xix. (1739), Georgi (1742), Jocher (1751), Mordri,
Saxius*s Onomasticon (1785), Heinsius (181 2), Rotermund, Fortsetsung
su Jocher'' s Gelehrten-Lex, vol. iv. (1813), Ebert, Graesse. Rotermund's
authority is the more weighty, as he published an elaborate work on the
literati of Bremen.
So in many special bibliographical or biographical or miscellaneous
works; as Acta Eruditorum^ 1709, p. 35; J. A. Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca
(torn, iv., p. 845, ed. Harles); Joh. Fabricius, Hist, Bibl. Fabric. (1724),
vi. 374; Reimman (1731); Bibliothique raisonn^e^ etc. 1735, xv. 29; Baum-
garten, Nachrichten, u.s.w. iv. 207; Francke, Cat. Biblioth. Bunav.
(1750)* J- *2; Knoch (1754); Paquot (1765); Koecher, Analecta (1766);
Bauer, Biblioth. libb. rar. (1771); Goeze, Verzeichniss {\777)\ Kok, Vader-
landsch Woordenboeky vol. xxi. (1790); and Van der Aa, Biog. Woorden-
boek der Nederlanden, vol. xii. (Kok and Van der Aa have no article
upon him, as he was not a Dutchman ; but they mention him in treating
of his brother.)
l88 CRITICAL ESSAYS
So in the special bibliographies of theological literature or some of
its branches; as Buddaeus, Isa^oj^e (1730), Walch (1757-65), Masch's Le
Long (1778X Rosenmiiller (1797), Noesselt (4th ed., 1800), G. W. Meyer
(1805), Simon (18 13), Winer (3d ed., 1838-40), Danz (1843), P<5renn&s
(1858).
So various writers on textual criticism; as Bengel (1734) and Wet-
stein (1735 ^^^ '750» who call him " Gerardus k Mastricht"; C. B.
Michaelis {De varr. iectt,, 1749). Rumpaeus (2d ed., 1757), Doedcs, Tekst-
kritiek (1844). Griesbach (1777) has *• Mastrichtius."
So among the *• Introductions" to the N. T. ; C G. Hofmann in his
edition of Pri tins (1737 and 1764), and Kapp in his notes to the same;
J. D. Michaelis (4th ed., 1787), Haenlein (2d ed., 1802X J. E. C. Schmidt
(1805), Bertholdt (181 2), Marsh (Lect. vii.), Hug (4th ed., 1847), Eich-
horn (vol. v., 1827), Schott (1830), De Wette (6th ed., i860), Guericke
(3d ed., 1868). He does not appear to be mentioned by Bleek or Hil-
genfeld.
I fear I have been tedious ; but, having looked up the matter as well
as I could conveniently in my physical weakness, I thought I would give
you the benefit of my memoranda. I have cited, I believe, about sixt>'
authorities for Afastricht as the form of the surname. There is, I think,
no evidence on the other side of any weight, no reason to suppose that
our Gerhard, a German, ever wrote his name Gerardus or Gerard van
Maestricht^ much less " Gerhard van Maestricht," which is mixing up
German and Dutch. It is a small matter; but were I in your place,
unless you have the man's autograph or something as decisive on the
other side, I should request the printers to change van to von^ and to
strike out the ^ in il/tz^j/r/^///. i. h. h.]
VIII.
BUTTMANN'S GREEK TESTAMENT.*
[From the Bibliotktca Sacra for October, 1858.]
This edition of the Greek Testament forms a part of the
popular collection of ancient Greek and Latin authors pub-
lished by Teubner of Leipzig. Like the other volumes in
the series, it is neatly printed, and sold at a moderate price.
Its editor, Philip Buttmann, the son of the distinguished
philologist of the same name, was associated with Lachmann
in the preparation of his larger edition of the Greek Testa-
ment : he arranged the authorities for the various readings
of the Greek text. The edition which he now presents to
the public purports to be based on the celebrated Codex
Vaticanus No. 1209, except in the latter part of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Phile-
mon, and the Apocalypse, in which portions of the New
Testament that MS. is unfortunately mutilated. Here its
place is supplied by the Alexandrine. Buttmann professes
to give, in the margin, all the variations from his own text
which are found in the Vatican MS., the Elzevir edition of
1624, or the "Received Text," Griesbach's larger edition
(Vol. I. ed. Schulz, 1827; Vol. H., 1806), Lachmann's larger
edition (1842-50), and Tischendorf's edition of 1854, included
in his Novum Testatnentuvt Triglottuni, but also issued
separately.
One serious defect in the present work, considered as a
manual for common use, is the absence of all references to
the quotations from the Old Testament, or to parallel pas-
* Nowm TestamttUvm Graece. Ad fidem potissimvm Codicis V.iiican! B recensvit, varias
lectiones Codicis B, Textrs Recepti, Editionvm Griesbachii Lachinanni Tischendoriii integras
adiedt Phiuppvs Bvttmann. Lipsiae evonptibus et typis B. J. Tevbueri. 1856 Small 8vo.
pp. viii., 543*
190 CRITICAL ESSAYS
sages in the New. Some may also regret that it has no
analysis of the contents of the different books, in the form
of running titles or headings of chapters. But, if the prom-
ises of the title-page and preface were fulfilled, it would
still be a convenient and useful book, supplying an impor-
tant desideratum. No other edition gives a complete view
of the critical results arrived at in respect to the text by
Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, the three editors
whose judgment is now most highly respected by scholars.
The editions of Hahn (1840) and Thcilc (stereotyped in
1844), ^^^ ^^^ edition of the New Testament in Stier
and Theile's Polyglottcn-Bibcl (stereotyped in 1846), profess,
indeed, to exhibit the various readings of the principal
recent editors of the Greek Testament ; but they do this
very imperfectly. In giving the readings of Griesbach, they
take no notice of those which he marks 2ls probably spurious,
or of those which he designates as equal in authority to the
reading of the text. Hahn preceded Tischendorf ; and he
professedly exhibits a selection only from the readings of
Lachmann, taken of course from his first edition of 1831.
He is, moreover, inaccurate, incorrectly representing the
critical judgment of Knapp alone in more than one hun-
dred and thirty instances.
Theile intentionally passes over the minuter variations ;
and both his Greek Testament and the Polyglotten-Bibcl
were published too soon to enable him to use the second
volume of Lachmann's larger edition, or the second Leipzig
edition of Tischendorf (1849), ^^^ most important, so far as
the criticism of the text is concerned, since the time of Gries-
bach. (The first edition of Tischendorf, published in 1841,
is comparatively of little value.) The Greek portion of
Theile's Novum Testament ?nn Tetriiglottou (1855) is merely
taken from the stereotype plates of the Polyglotten-Bibel.
Tischendorf's edition of 1849 gi^'es the various readings
of Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, with those of the
Elzevir edition of 1624 and Stephens's of 1550; but he
neglects the readings which Lachmann places in the margin
as equal in value to those of the text ; and Griesbach's are
BUTTMAXXS GREEK TESTAMENT I9I
taken from his larger edition, instead of the manual edition
of 1805, which generally represents his later conclusions.
Bagster's Large-print Greek Testament (London, 185 1 )
contains only ** selected various readings from Griesbach,
Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf," though the selection
is copious, and made with care and judgment.
Buttmann speaks in his preface of the difficulty of mak-
ing a selection of this kind, and thinks it better to let the
student decide for himself as to the comparative importance
of particular differences in the text. He accordingly pro-
fesses to give all the various readings of the authorities
named in his title-page, "even the most trivial** {et levissi-
mas). Where Griesbach and Lachmann regard two read-
ings of the same passage as possessing equal claims to
reception, he indicates the fact by citing their authority for
both. Such are his promises ; and the value of his work
must chiefly depend on the fidelity with which they are
performed. Few critics will doubt that he overestimates
the authority of the Vatican MS., regarding it as equal, if
not superior, to that of all the rest of our MSS. of the New
Testament united. He even ventures, in one instance (2
Pet. iii. 10), to alter the text by conjecture, changing -« into
fl. because, otherwise, the reading of this MS. would be
without meaning. Still, the Vatican MS. is undoubtedly
the oldest and best which has come down to us ; and, if
Buttminn has relied upon it too exclusively, the error is
not of much consequence, if he sets before us the text of
Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf in connection with
his own.
Such being the case, we regret to say that all which
would give value to this edition is wanting. No reliance
can be placed on Buttmann*s account of the various read-
ings of anyone of the authorities cited. His carelessness
is extraordinary. We have gone over the Gospel of
Matthew, comparing the representations of Buttmann with
the authorities to which he refers; and it appears that he
has committed more than Jive hnnJrcd errors in that Gos-
pel alone. These mistakes may be divided as follows :
192 CRITICAL ESSAYS
errors respecting the readings of the Received Text (the
Elzevir edition of 1624), 136; errors respecting those of
Griesbach*s edition, 250; respecting those of Lachmann's
edition, 47; respecting those of Tischendorf's edition, 60;
errors respecting the readings of the Vatican MS., not less
than 47, and probably many more ; in all, 540. It did not
seem worth while to pursue the inquiry further ; but, at this
rate, the number of mistakes in the whole volume would be
not less than four thousand.
It is true that many of the errors which we have noted
relate to minute differences in the text, of little intrinsic im-
portance ; but Buttmann, it will be remembered, professes to
give all the various readings of the authorities mentioned.
It may be of no consequence whether Boo;, or b^hJ*, or Bo/f be
the original reading in Matt. i. 5 ; but it is of some impor-
tance as a test of Buttmann's care as an editor, to know that
he ascribes to Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the Received
Text one of these forms, when they actually have another.
A complete list of the errors referred to (in the Gospel of
Matthew alone) would occupy a number of pages. The fol-
lowing examples may suffice.
I. The Elzevir edition of 1624 reads, Matt. i. 5, Bw:, not B.>or;
iii. 15, f'-f TTfwr airufy not t.irrti' arri'f), 1 6, kuI ;ia:Tria\^(i(;, nOt fia:Tri(j&(tg
'V; iv. 11, -()nn/}/i'^m', nOt 'ponrY/.xinv (sO ix. 28; xiii. 36; \\\\ 1$) \
V. 27, *'/>/Vi'v, not hm^'^n (so vv. 33, i^, 43) ; same verse, adds
zdtr h.)\>in-r aftcf '/>/'^ '"''/ ; 30, i^^v^^fj t'c }hvv(iv, noX, t/f>. .J/-. ; vii. 22,
TTit'noiinlnniin-, not ^-ii'>■:n^r^ rannv (similarly xi. I3; XV. j) \ viii. 2(),
'it/G'>i' v'lf not '•' simply; ix. 5, ''iofuji-<if, not aQ-ti'Tai; x. 41, >vv''*■"«^
not /',iC\Tai (so elsewhere); xi. 2^, hmvav^ not f/Kin-v] xii. 44,
Gicapijuii'di; not Kill C'c.-^ XUl. 0, tKaviKiriayjT/^ TiOt ^Knryaruu^; I4,
at' air-ur^ not f'/-..r simply ; 52, t'm; not ^-O'"^; xiv. 6, ^jWi-on-, not
>fjv////i(,>i-; 27, "'li'-':, not "if.V (so Xxi. 3) ; XViii. 4, rurrai-ucg,
not -fy i\ xxiil. 14, I-om r^u after ^^^•"'^a/.>' ; xxvi. 70 reads ^'irrwi-,
not al-riji.' -rni-7(.>.- . XXvll. 47, lor^rur, nOt trrz/Korwr. In all but four
of the places (Matt. v. 2J ] viii. 29; xlii. 14; x.wi. 70), the
mistakes above specified apply equally to the account of
Grlesbach's readini^^s. We will therefore give only a few
additional examples from him.
buttmann's greek testament 193
2. Griesbach reads, Matt. i. 6, io/jofiC)m, not -ovra; ii. n,
elSov, not evpov; vi. 32, tm^nT^ly nOt CT^vrow/y; vill. 3 1, aT(J<TretP.ov ///ztif,
not eTrirpe^ifov r/juuv aTrcP.i^dv; ix. 8, he marks €<;>o,3^&ffuav as equal in
authority to k^avfiaaav, xiii. i6 reads axom, not aKovovatv; marks
xviii. 1 1 and xxiii. 14 as probably to be omitted.
3. Lachmann reads, Matt. iv. 11, TrpoafA^ov^ not -^av; vii. 25,
rrpocirraiaav, not TrpoceKtffav ; 2/, irpuakpprj^av, in the margin, as equal
in authority to npoatKo^av in the text ; xiii. 6, tKavfxaria^r/, not
eKavfuiru&Tj] xiv. 1 9, rjvTiAyrfoev^ not evX6yr/<jEv\ XViii. 1 6, /^^rd ffoD after
'Ji^, not after ^apd?ui-ie; xxi. 3, evi^cwf, not eui^^f; xxiii. 19, brackets
ftupOl KOI.
4. Tischendorf reads. Matt. ii. 22, em Tf/g 'lovdamc, not ryg 'lovd. ;
iv. 23, TTtpvfjyev, not tt. 6 'I^ffouf ; xi. l6, eripoic, nOt eTalpoig; xiii. 48,
ay77, not ayyeZa; 52, eln-ev, nOt ^ye^; xvi. 8, £?A,3ETe^ nOt ^;tere; 28,
eiffiv, not bTielaiv; xvii. 4, TToiijau, nOt -<Tw//ei/; Xviii. I, wp(i, not W^P<?\
xxi. 18, CTravayayuv, nOt f Travaywi; ; xxiii. 4, OmitS Kal SjalidaraKTa.
5. The Vatican MS. reads, Matt. i. 12, yew^, not eytwriaev
(twice) ; ii. 13, adds ^k rriv x^p^^ abruv after avTijv; iii. 16,
rrvevfta Qeov, nOt t^ Jrvevfia tov Qsov- iv. 23, OmitS o 'lijaovg after
irept^ev; vii. 1 9, reads Trdv, not ^dv oily (Lachmann is wrong) ;
xii. 47, omits the whole verse; 31, auTov oi avvSoviot^ not oia.ab.;
XXii. 45» avTov Kvptov KoXel, nOt «a^< a'vTdvKvptov; XXV. 6, eyevero^ nOt
yiyovtv ; XXVi. 56* adds avrov after fM^v^ai,
These specimens may be sufficient to determine the char-
acter of the work; but one or two points require further
elucidation. We refer to the use which the editor professes
to make of the Vatican MS., and to the extraordinary num-
ber of errors which he has committed in regard to the read-
ings of Griesbach.
It is on the Vatican MS. that Buttmann professedly founds
his text ; but he nowhere informs his readers how imperfect
our knowledge of that MS. is. We have, indeed, three col-
lations of it: one by Bartolocci, in 1669; another by an Ital-
ian named Mico, made for the use of Bentley, about 1720;
and a third by Birch, toward the end of the last century.
The two last have been published ; a transcript of the first
is preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris. These col-
lations give us the reading of the MS. in a great many pas
194 CRITICAL ESSAYS
siges; but it would be the height of rashness to attempt
from them to publish its text. Sometimes they all disagree ;
sometimes two of them differ, while the third is silent ; and
a comparison of them demonstrates that much has been
overlooked by the author of each. Important readings,
which they have all neglected to notice, have been observed
by Tischendorf and Tregelies, who have both had the priv-
ilege of inspecting (not of collating) the MS. for a short
time. The text which Buttmann gives as that of the Codex
Vaticanus rests, in many places, only on the unsafe founda-
tion of the silence of the collators.
But this is not all. Buttmann has not even taken pains
to examine any one of the collations personally ; but derives
the readings of the MS. merely from Lachmann*s edition,
except that he has made considerable use of an article by
Tischendorf, in the Theol. Stndien tmd Kritikcn for 1847,
p. 129 £f. Tischendorf, in his edition of 1849, P- xlvi., points
out a number of errors committed by Lachmann in respect
to the readings of this MS. ; but these errors are repeated
by Buttmann. He also mentions (p. Iviii.) two noticeable
readings communicated by Dr. Tregelies ; but this informa-
tion is also lost upon* our editor. Other mistakes of Butt-
mann might have been corrected by examining the collation
made for Bentley, printed by Ford in 1799, in his Appendix
to Woide's edition of \\i(t Codex Alexanirinns ; others still,
from the article by Tischendorf, to which he refers.
Discreditable as this negligence is, it is morje excusable
than the misrepresentations of Griesbach's critical judg-
ment which constitute so large a part of the errors which
we have noticed. Buttmann does not seem to have even
made himself acquainted with the meaning of the signs
which Griesbach uses to denote the comparative value of
different readings. In the first place, Griesbach is repre-
sented as receiving, without question, the readings which he
marks 2i^ probably spurious y prefixing the sign =. There are
not far from five hundred cases of this kind in the New Tes-
tament, some of them of much importance. The passage
concerning the woman taken in adultery (John vii. 53 to
buttmann's greek testament 195
viii. 1 1) is a striking instance. In the Gospel of Matthew
there are forty-five examples of this error on the part of
Buttmann.
There is another class of readings, to which Griesbach
prefixes a peculiar mark (•*), denoting that they are worthy
of consideration, but inferior to those received into the text.
Buttmann habitually confounds this with another mark (r),
which signifies that the reading to which it is prefixed is
equal or perhaps preferable to the received lection. Com-
pare, for example, his edition with that of Griesbach in
Matt. i. 18, 19; ii. 8, 9, 17, etc. He has fallen into this mis-
take, in the Gospel of Matthew, thirty-nine times.
There is another smaller class of readings which Gries-
bach introduces into the text with the sign + prefixed.
These are given by Buttmann as readings which Griesbach
adopts as genuine ; whereas this sign, as explained by him,
denotes an addition for which there is some evidence deserv-
ing attention, but which is probably not genuine. See his
Prolegomoia (Schulz's ed.), p. Ixxxvii. There are ten ex-
amples of this error in the* Gospel of Matthew ; see, e.g.,
Matt. XXVI. 9, 33, 35, 38.
One other remark may be made in this connection. Gries-
bach's readings should have been taken from his manual edi-
tion, printed at Leipzig in 1805. Where this differs from
his larger edition, it generally represents his maturer judg-
ment. The first volume of the larger edition was published
in 1796 ; and, though the second volume bsars the date 1806,
it appears by the preface that far the greater part of it had
been printed several years before. The differences between
the two editions, in respect to the text, are not very numer
ous ; but some of them are important. For example, the
last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark, to which Gries-
bach affixes no mark of doubt in his larger edition of 1796,
are designated as probably spurious in the manual edition of
1805 : and he argues at length against their genuineness in
Part II. of his Commentarius CriticuSy published in 18 11. It
is obviously not doing him justice, to quote his authority,
in such a case, in support of the reading of the Received
Text.
196 CRITICAL ESSAYS
It is hardly worth while to point out misprints in a work
of the character of the present. One or two of the grosser
instances which we have observed may be mentioned, as
fiera for fiearov, p. 246, line three from the bottom ; and roprfuii.wc
for TTjpovfdvnv^, p. 342, line eight; and also in line two of the
margin.
It is unpleasant to be compelled thus to expose the faults
of a work the editor of which bears so honored a name, and
which forms part of a series that has been received with gen-
eral favor. These very circumstances, however, being likely
to give it a circulation to which it is not entitled, make it a
more imperative duty to warn the unwary student against
its false pretensions.
IX.
WESTCOTT AND HORT'S EDITION OF THE
GREEK TESTAMENT.*
[From the Sunday School Timos for Nov. 5, 1881.]
This edition of the Greek Testament will mark an epoch
in the history of New Testament criticism. Dr. Schaff
accepts its text enthusiastically as ** the oldest and purest "
which has yet been published. Many in England, and still
more, probably, in Germany, will heartily welcome it as a
work bearing everywhere the stamp of independent, origi-
nal research, and the most painstaking care. But, in some
quarters, it cannot fail to encounter deadly hostility, and
before its conclusions arc generally adopted there will be
much discussion. Though the work will now be more
fairly judged than if it had been published twenty years
ago, the charge of extreme rashness will doubtless be
brought against the editors by such critics as Dean Burgon
and the Rev. J. B. McClellan; and Dr. Scrivener, who had
the use of their "provisional" text, has already, in the
second edition of his Introduction (1874), strongly expressed
his dissent from many of their conclusions. Even scholars
who have become emancipated from the superstitious wor-
ship of the so-called " Received Text," and who are ready to
decide critical questions on purely critical principles, and
not by their "infallible instincts," may be startled at the
boldness of the editors in the use of the pruning-knife,
which in their hands cuts deeper than even in those of
Tischendorf and Tregelles. Westcott and Hort, for exam-
• Tko Ntw Testament in th* Original Greek : the Text revised by Brooke Fobs Westcott,
D.D.,Cauion of Peterborough, and Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridze, and Fenton John
ADthooy HoftfD.D., Hnlsean Professor of Divinity, Cambiidge. American Edition, with an
lotroduction bjr Philtp Schaff, D.D., LL.D. Crown 8vo pp. xc, 5S0 New York: Harper &
Brothere. Pnce $3.00
198 CRITICAL ESSAYS
pie, regard as later additions to the text not only the last
twelve verses of Mark, the account of the descent of the
angel into the pool of Bethesda (or *' Bethzatha," as they
read), and the story of the woman taken in adultery (John
vii. 53 to viii. 11), but the passages noted in the margin of
the Revised Version at Matt. xvi. 2, 3 ; Luke xxii. 19, 20,
43, 44; xxiii. 34; xxiv. 3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52; and John
iii. 13, as "omitted by some [or "many"] ancient authori-
ties.** Other readings of theirs will seem to many, at first
sight at least, very questionable.
But the last charge which can be justly brought against
the editors is that of rashness. They may have erred in
judgment, but they have come to their conclusions with
great deliberation. The history of the work entitles it, not,
indeed, to immediate, unquestioning acceptance as final in
its decisions, but to the most respectful consideration. It
"was projected and commenced in 1853, and the work has
never been laid more than partially aside in the interval,
though it has suffered many delays and interruptions. The
mode of procedure adopted by the editors from the first was
to work out their results independently of each other, to
hold no counsel together except upon results already pro-
visionally obtained, and to discuss on paper the compara-
tively few points of initial difference until either agreement
or final difference was reached.** (Circular of the pub-
lishers.) To this, it may be added that a large part of the
text, the Gospels at least, appears to have been in type for
more than ten years, during which period it has been re-
vised and re-revised with great care, as deeper investigations
have led the editors to modify here and there their earlier
decisions. As to the character of the editors, none who
are acquainted with the writings of Professor Westcott
and Dr. Hort will question their eminent intellectual and
moral qualifications for the task they have undertaken, —
the great moral qualification, in studies such as these,
being the single aim to ascertain the truth.
It is important, however, to observe that the present
volume exhibits only the results of their critical investiga-
WESTCOTT AND HORT*S GREEK TESTAMENT 1 99
tions. It takes no notice of the text of any previous edi-
tion, so that there is nothing to show the extent of its
divergence from the so-called " Received Text,** or of its
agreement with the great critical editions of Tischendorf
and Tregelles, with which, notwithstanding many differ-
ences, it does agree in the main. There is no discussion
of any reading, no statement of the authorities (MSS., etc.)
which, in any questionable case, support the text. Alterna-
tive readings, indeed, are given, where the editors regard
the true reading as more or less uncertain ; also, certain
noteworthy rejected readings appear in the text in double
brackets, or in the margin with certain marks ; and at the
end of the volume there is a list of still other rejected
readings "which have been thought worthy of notice in the
appendix [to the second volume] on account of some special
interest attaching to them.** This list also includes a few
passages in which the editors (or one of them) suspect
**some primitive error,** and propose conjectural emenda-
tions. But it is a mere list. There is also a very con-
densed sketch (pp. 541-562) of the conclusions of the editors
in regard to the true principbs of criticism, the history of
the text, the grouping of our chief documentary authorities
in accordance with their peculiar characteristics, and the
determination of the relative value of the several documents
and groups of documents, in estimating which " the history
and genealogy of textual transmission have been taken as
the necessary foundation.** To this is subjoined a most
appetizing and tantalizing summary of the contents of their
elaborate " Critical Introduction,** which, with an appendix,
containing notes on select readings, notes on orthography,
and a list of passages of the Old Testament quoted or
alluded to, forms the second or accompanying volume of
their work. This was announced more than a month ago in
the Academy and elsewhere as to appear immediately, but
does not seem as yet to have found its way across the
Atlantic.
It is this critical "Introduction** which will give the edi-
tion of Westcott and Hort its distinctive value, and which,
200 CRITICAL ESSAYS
whether all their conclusions prove firmly established or not,-
will be most heartily welcomed by scholars, and cannot fail
to contribute greatly to the advancement of New Testament
criticism. They have undertaken a very difficult and deli-
cate task; but their method is the true one. Some pioneer-
ing had been done by Griesbach and others ; but no such
comprehensive and scientific investigation of the character
and relative value of our external authorities for settling the
text has been hitherto attempted. It is on this introduction
that the whole structure of the editors rests ; and any
criticism of particular readings which they have adopted,
should, in fairness, be reserved till the facts and reasonings
on which their system of criticism is founded, have been
carefully studied and weighed.
To describe the four types of text, ** the Western,*' " the
Alexandrian," " the Neutral," and " the Syrian " (earlier and
later), which they find represented in our critical documents,
would require more space than can here be allowed. It
may be enough to say that the text which they designate
as "neutral," and regard as in general approximating most
closely to the original autographs, is represented in its
greatest purity by the Vatican MS. (B), to which they assign
superlative value; the Sinaitic (K) being, in their judgment,
next in importance, but far less pure. But "with certain
limited classes of exceptions, the readings of K and B com-
bined may safely be accepted as genuine in the absence of
specially strong internal evidence to the contrary, and can
never be safely rejected altogether" (p. 557). Nay, every
combination of B with one other primary MS., as in the
Gospels L, C, or T, " is found to have a large proportion
of readings, which on the closest scrutiny have the ring of
genuineness, and hardly any that look suspicious after full
consideration." "Even when B stands alone, its readings
must never be lightly rejected" {Ibid.). This estimate dif-
fers somewhat from that of Professor T. R. Birks of Cam-
bridge, who conceives himself to have proved by mathemat-
ical calculations " that on the hypothesis most favourable
to the early manuscripts, and specially to the Vatican, its
WESTCOTT AND HORT'S GREEK TESTAMENT 20I
weight is exactly that of two manuscripts of the fifteenth
century, while the Sinaitic weighs only one-third more than
an average manuscript of the eleventh century." {Essay on
the Right Estimation of Manuscript Evidence in the Text of
the New Testament, London, 1878, p. 66.)
The present volume is issued in such a form that it may
be used independently of the second ; and it is apparently
supposed that there will be some or many theological stu-
dents whose want of a convenient manual edition will be
met by this volume alone. It certainly is one which every
theological student may well desire to possess, and should
possess if possible ; but the question may arise how far it
will serve as his only edition. If he is ready to accept the
conclusions of the editors without further inquiry or exami-
nation of evidence, and without comparison with those of
other critics, and if he does not care to have a text furnished
with references to parallel or illustrative passages, or to the
quotations from the Old Testament, this volume may be
perfectly satisfactory. It is b^audfully printed, though the
type is not large ; the lines are well leaded ; its form is con-
venient; and it may be read with great delight. Indeed,
there is no other existing edition of the Greek Testament
in which so much is done to aid the mind of the reader by
the form in which the matter is presented to the eye. The
great natural divisions of the larger boolvs are marked by a
wide space, and by the printing of the initial words in capi-
tals; the minor subdivisions, but such as comprise many
paragraphs, are separated by a smaller space ; the para-
graphs, when they include a series of connected topics, as,
for example. Matt. v. 17-48, are broken up by short but
well-marked spaces into sub-paragraphs, as in Herbert Spen-
cer's writings, — a most excellent device, worthy of general
introduction. " Uncial type " is employed for quotations
from the Old Testament, and also to mark phrases bor-
rowed from it; rhythmical passages, like Luke i. 46-55, 6^-
79, as well as poetical quotations from the Old Testament,
are printed in a metrical form. The chapters and verses
are numbered only in the margin. This sonutimes leaves
202 V.RITICAL ESSAYS
uncertainty as to the beginning of a verse, in which case
the doubt should have been removed by a little mark of
separation. For one who wishes to give himself to the
continuous reading of the Greek text with the least possible
distraction, this edition has no rival. Harper & Brothers
have rendered a great service to students of the New Testa-
ment by their republication of it, from duplicate plates, at
a moderate price. In a second issue the few misprints —
such as wMwi' for '>^»' at the end of line three on page 23, and
(probably) ''Posteriority'' for ''Priority,'' page 567, in the
titles of the subsections to Section I. of Chapter II. — will
doubtless be corrected.
But no intelligent scholar, even though he may have
other editions which will supply some of the deficiencies
that have been mentioned, will be fully contented with the
first volume alone. The second volume is really the basis
of the first, and its necessary explanation ; it is that by
which the value of the editors* work must be measured. It
is therefore earnestly to be hoped that the enterprising
American publishers will issue it as soon as possible in the
same style as the first. It is no ephemeral production.
A few words on Dr. Schaff's Introduction. After a brief
but highly commendatory notice of the edition and the
editors, we have, presented in a lively, popular style, an
introduction, not so much to this particular edition as to the
elements of textual criticism. It describes, in an interest-
ing manner, the chief authorities for settling the te.xt, —
the most important ancient MSS., the principal ancient ver-
sions, and the quotations by the early Christian Fathers ;
treats of the various readings, their origin, number, impor-
tance, and the principles of criticism ; and gives a good
account of the most important printed editions of the Greek
text, ranged under three "periods." The ancient MSS. are
illustrated by fiv^e fac-similes. In general, the information
given is well brought down to the present time, and many
minor errors of Scrivener and other writers are corrected.
The account of ancient MSS., versions, etc., will not greatly
facilitate the use of this volume, as these documents are
WESTCOTT AND HORX'S GREEK TESTAMENT 203
never cited in it for or against any particular reading. Oc-
casional oversights may be found ; for example, on page
xlviii., Bernhardt's edition of the Gothic version is said to be
** provided/* like that of Gabelentz and Loebe, "with a com-
plete apparatus." That is emphatically true of the latter ;
but the former lacks the important accompaniments of a
grammar and lexicon. On the same pa^^e, in speaking of
the edition of the Gospel of Mark in Gothic, with a gram-
matical commentary by Dr. R. Miillcr and Dr. H. Hoeppe
(1881), *'Muller" is misprinted "Miller.*' It should be
added that the little work referred to is not only inaccu-
rately printed, but that the grammatical notes are disfigured
by extraordinary mistakes. In treating of the Peshito or
Peshitto Syriac, it would have been well, perhaps, to have
mentioned the edition of Leusden and Schaaf, since, with
all its faults, it is so helpful to the student through the
copious Lexicon (almost Concordance) which accompanies
it, and its Latin translation.
X.
THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT.
[Originaily printed in the " Bible Revision Number** of the Suiuiay School World lor
October, 1878.]
It is an unquestionable fact that the Greek text of the
New Testament from which our common English version
was made contains many hundreds of errors which have af-
fected the translation ; and that in some cases whole verses,
or even longer passages, in the common English Bible, are
spurious. This fact alone is sufficient to justify the demand
for such a revision of the common version as shall remove
these corruptions. Why, when so much pains is taken to
obtain as correct a text as possible of ancient classical
authors, — of Homer, Plato, or Thucydides, — should we be
content with a text of the New Testament formed from a
few modern MSS. in the infancy of criticism, when our
means of improving it arc now increased a hundred-fold.^
Why should the mere mistakes of transcribers still be im-
posed upon unlearned readers as the words of evangelists
and apostles, or even of our Lord himself.^
The statements that have just been made require illustra-
tion and explanation, in order that the importance of these
errors of the Received Text may not be exaggerated on the
one hand or underestimated on the other. We will con-
sider, then : —
1. T/w nature and extent of the differences of text in the
Greek MSS. of the Neiv Testament. The MSS. of the
New Testament, like those of all other ancient writings,
differ from one another in some readings of considerable
interest and importance, and in a multitude of unimportant
particulars, such as the spelling of certain words ; the order
of the words; the addition or omission of particles not
THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 205
affecting, or only slightly affecting, the sense ; the insertion
of words that would otherwise be understood ; the sub-
stitution of a word or phrase for another synonymous with
it ; the use of different tenses of the same verb, or different
cases of the same noun, where the variation is immaterial ;
and other points of no more consequence. The various
readings which are comparatively important as affecting the
sense consist for the most part : (i) of the substitution of
one word for another that closely resembles it in spelling or
in pronunciation ; (2) the omission of a clause or longer
passage from homozoteleuton, — that is, the fact that it ends
with the same word or the same series of syllables as the
one preceding it ; and (3) the addition to the text of words
which were originally written as a marginal note or gloss,
or are supplied from a parallel passage. Ancient scribes,
like mcklern printers, when very knowing, have often made
mistakes while they thought they were correcting them ;
but there is little or no ground for believing that the text
of the New Testament has suffered in any place from
wilful corruption.
The state of the case will be made plainer by specific
examples. The great majority of questions about the
readings, so far as they affect the translation, are such as
these : whether we should read ** Jesus Christ " or " Christ
Jesus"; "the disciples" or "his disciples"; "and" for
"but" or "now," and vice versa; "Jesus said" or "he
said"; "he said" or "he saith" or "he answered and said" ;
whether we should add or omit "and" or "but" or "for"
or "therefore," the sense not being affected; whether we
should read "God" or "Lord" or " Christ," in such phrases
as "the word of God." or **of the Lord," or "of Christ,"—
these three words differing, as abbreviated in the Greek
MSS., by only a single letter. Of the more important
various readings, much the larger part consists of spurious
additions to the text, not fraudulent, but originally written
as marginal or interlinear notes, and afterwards taken into
the text by a very common and natural mistake. Most of
these occur in the Gospels. For instance, "bless them that
206 CRITICAL ESSAYS
curse you, do good to them that hate you," is probably not
genuine in Matt. v. 44, but was borrowed from the parallel
passage in Luke vi. 27, 28. So the words **to repentance"
are wanting in the best MSS. in Matt ix. 13 and Mark ii.
17, but were introduced into later copies from Luke v. 32.
For an example of omission from ho^nceoteleuton, we may
refer to i John ii. 23, where in our English Bibles the last
clause of the verse is printed in italics as of doubtful gen-
uineness. It is unquestionably genuine ; how it was acci-
dentally omitted in some MSS. will be seen if we under-
stand that in the original the order of the words is as
follows: "he that acknowledgeth the Son hath also the
Father,*' the ending being the same as that of the preceding
clause. The copyist, glancing at the ending of the second
clause, supposed he had written it. when in fact he had
only written the first. For an example of the s2ibstitution of
a word for another resembling it in spelling, we may take
Rev. i. 5, where for '^wxsJied us" (Ao/Vmi/r.) the best MSS.
read ** loosed'* or ''released us*' Qvaavn), For another, see
the margin of the common version. Acts xiii. 18.
I will now give as full an account as is possible within
moderate limits of the more important and remarkable
various readings, that every one may see for himself to how
much they amount.
The longer passages of which the genuineness is more or
less questionable are the doxology in the Lord's Prayer,
Matt, vi. 13; Matt. xvi. 2, 3, from ''when" to "times'*
(most critics retain the words) ; xvii. 21; xviii. 11; xx. 16,
last part (genuine in xxii. 14); xxi. 44; xxiii. 14; xxvii. 35
(from "that it might be fulfilled" to "lots"); Mark vi. 11,
last sentence; vii. 16; ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28; xvi. 9-20
(a peculiar and rather difficult question) ; Luke ix. 55, 56,
from "and said" to "save them"; xvii. 36; xxii. 43, 44
(most critics retain the passage) ; xxiii. 17, 34, first sentence
(most critics retain it); xxiv. 12, 40; John v. 3, 4, from
"waiting" to "he had" (most critics reject this); vii. 53
to viii. II (also rejected by most critics); x.\i. 25 (retained
by most critics); Acts viii. 37; ix. 5, 6, from "it is hard"
THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 207
to "unto him" (has no MS. authority: compare xxvi. 14;
xxii. 10); XV. 34; xxiv. 6-8, from "and would" to '*unto
thee " ; xxviii. 29 ; Rom. xi. 6, second sentence ; xvi. 24 ;
I John V. 7, 8, from "in heaven" to "in earth," inclusive
(the famous text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, now
rejected by common consent of scholars as an interpolation).
Most of the questionable additions in the Gospels, it will
be seen on examination, are from parallel passages, where
the words are genuine; the doxolo^y in the Lord's Prayer
probably came in from the ancient liturgies (compare i
Chron. xxix. 11); the passage about the woman taken in
adultery, and some other additions, especially Luke ix. 55,
56, xxiii. 34 (if this is not genuine), are from early and
probably authentic tradition.
Of questions relating to particular words or phrases, the
following are some of the more interesting and important :
whether we should read in Matt. i. 25 "a son" or "her
first-born son" (compare Luke ii. 7); vi. i, "alms" or
"righteousness"; xi. 19, "children" or "works"; xix. 16,
17, "Good Teacher," and "callest thou me good," or
"Teacher," and "askest thou me concerning what is good " ;
Mark i. 2, "in the prophets" or "in Isaiah the prophet" ;
ix. 23, "If thou canst believe," or simply, "If thou canst!"
Luke ii. 14, "good will to (^r among) men" or "among
men of good will" (the latter expression meaning, probably,
"men to whom God hath shown favor") ; iv. 44, "Galilee"
or "Judaea"; xiv. 5, "an ass or an ox" or "a son or an
ox"; xxiii. 15, "I sent you to him" or "he sent him back
to us"; xxiv. 51, omit "and was carried up into heaven";
John i. 18, read "the only begotten Son" or "only begotten
God" (the words for "Son" and "God" differ in but a
single letter in the old MSS.) ; iii. 13, omit "which is in
heaven " (most critics retain the clause) ; vii. 8, read " not
. . . yet" or "not"; xiv. 14, '*ask anything in my name"
or " ask of me anything in my name " ; Acts xi. 20,
"Greeks" or "Hellenists"; xvi. 7, "the Spirit" or "the
Spirit of Jesus"; xx. 28, "the church of God" or "the
church of the Lord" ; Rom. xiv. 10, " the judgment seat of
2o8 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Christ " or " the judgment seat of God " ; i Cor. x. 9, ** tempt
Christ" or "tempt the Lord"; xiii. 3, **tobe burned" or
"that I may glory"; xv. 47, omit "the Lord"; Eph. iii. 9,
omit "by Jesus Christ" ; v. 9, read "the fruit of the Spirit "
or "the fruit of the light" ; Col. ii. 2, "the mystery of God"
or " the mystery of God, Christ " (compare i. 27 : there are
several other readings); i Tim. iii. 16, "God was manifest"
or "who (or "He who") was manifest" (manifested) ; i Pet.
iii. 15, "ths Lird God" or "the Lord Christ," or rather
"Christ as L^rd"; Jude 25, "the only wise God our
Saviour" or "the only God our Saviour, through Jesus
Christ our Lord"; Rev. i. 8, "the Lord" or "the Lord
God " ; xxii. 14, " that do his commandments " or " that
wash their robes."
I have sufficiently illustrated the nature of the differences
in the text of the New Testament MSS. : we will now con-
sider their e.xtent and importance. The number of the
"various readings" frightens som* innocent people, and
figures largely in the writings of the more ignorant dis-
believers in Christianity. " One hundred and fifty thousand
various readings"! Must not these render the text of the
New Testament wholly uncertain, and thus destroy the
foundation of our faith }
The true state of the case is something like this. Of the
one hundred and fifty thousand various readings, more or
less, of the text of the Greek New Testament, we may, as
Mr. Norton has remarked, dismiss nineteen-twentieths from
consideration at once, as being obviously of such a charac-
ter, or supported by so little authority, that no critic would
regard them as having any claim to reception. This leaves,
we will say, seven thousand ^vq hundred. But of these,
again, it will appear, on examination, that nineteen out of
twenty are of no sort of consequence as affecting the sense ;
they relate to questions of orthography, or grammatical
construction, or the order of words, or such other matters
as have been mentioned above, in speaking of unimportant
variations. They concern only the form of expression, not
the essential meaning. This reduces the number to per-
THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 209
haps four hundred which involve a difference of meaning,
often very slight, or the omission or addition of a few words,
sufficient to render them objects of some curiosity and inter-
est, while a few exceptional cases among them may rela-
tively be called important. But our critical helps are now
so abundant that in a very large majority of these more
important questions of reading we are able to determine
the true text with a good degree of confidence. What re-
mains doubtful we can afEord to leave doubtful. In the
text of all ancient writings, there are passages in which the
text cannot be settled with certainty ; and the same is true
of the interpretation.
I have referred above to all, or nearly all, of the cases in
which the genuineness of a whole verse or more is question-
able ; and I have given the most remarkable of the other
readings of interest which present rival claims to acceptance.
Their importance may be somewhat differently estimated
by dififerent persons. But it may be safely said that no
Christian doctrine or duty rests on those portions of the
text which are affected by differences in the MSS. ; still
less is anything essential in Christianity touched by the
various readings. They do, to be sure, affect the bearing
of a few passages on the doctrine of the Trinity ; but the
truth or falsity of the doctrine by no means depends upon
the reading of those passages.
The number of the various readings which have been
collected from more than five hundred MSS., more than a
dozen ancient versions, and from the quotations in the writ-
ings of more than a hundred Christian Fathers, only attests
the exuberance of our critical resources which enable us now
to settle the true text of the New Testament with a confi-
dence and precision which are wholly unattainable in the
case of the text of any Greek or Latin classical author. I
say, enable us now to do this; for, in the time of our trans-
lators of 161 1, only a small fraction of our present critical
helps was available. This leads us to consider : —
2. 714^ imperfection of the Greek text on ivhieh our common
English version of the New Testament is fonnded. The prin-
2IO CRITICAL ESSAYS
cipal editions of the Greek Testament which influenced,
directly or indirectly, the text of the common version are
those of Erasmus, five in number (1516-35); Robert Ste-
phens (Estienne, Stephanus), of Paris and Geneva, four
editions (1546-51); Beza, four editions in folio (1565-98),
and five smaller editions (1565-1604); and the Compluten-
sian Polyglott (15 14, published in 1522). Without enter-
ing into minute details, it is enough to say that all these
editions were founded on a small number of inferior and
comparatively modern MSS., very imperfectly collated ; and
that they consequently contain a multitude of errors, which
a comparison with older and better copies has since enabled
us to discover and correct. It is true that Erasmus had one
valuable MS. of the Gospels, and Stephens two (D and L) ;
Beza had also D of the Gospels and Acts, and D (the Cler-
mont MS.) of the Pauline Epistles ; but they made scarcely
any use of them. The text of the common version appears
to agree more nearly with that of the later editions of Beza
than with any other ; but Beza followed very closely Robert
Stephens's edition of 1550, and Stephens's again was little
more than a reprint of the fourth edition of Erasmus (1527).
Erasmus used as the basis of his text an inferior MS. of the
fifteenth century, except in the Rev^elation, where he had
only an inaccurate transcript of a mutilated MS. (wanting
the last six verses) of little value, the real and supposed
defects of which he supplied by translating from the Latin
Vulgate into Greek. Besides this, he had in all, for his
later editions, three MSS. of the Gospels, and four oT the
Acts and Epistles; the text of the Aldine edition of 15 18,
and of the Complutensian Polyglott. In select passages, he
had also collations of some other MSS. The result of the
whole is that in a considerable number of cases, not, to be
sure, of great importance, the reading of the common Eng-
lish version is supported by iw known Greek MS. whatever,
but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza {e.g.. Acts ix. 5, 6;
Rom. vii. 6; i Pet. iii. 20; Rev. i. 9, 11 ; ii. 3, 20, 24; iii.
2 ; V. 10, 14; XV. 3; xvi. 5 ; xvii. 8, 16; xviii. 2, etc.); and
it is safe to say that in more than a thousand instances
THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 211
fidelity to the true text now ascertained requires a change
in the common version, though in most cases the change
would be slight. But granting that not many of the
changes required can be called important, in the case of
writings so precious as those of the New Testament every
one must feel a strong desire to have the text freed as far
as possible from later accretions, and restored to its primi-
tive purity. Such being the need, we will next consider : —
3. Our present resources for settling the text. Our MS.
materials for the correction of the text are far superior,
both in point of number and antiquity, to those which we
possess in the case of any ancient Greek classical author,
with the exception, as regards antiquity, of a few fragments,
as those of Philodemus, preserved in the Herculanean
papyri. The cases are very few in which any MSS. of
Greek classical authors have been found older than the
ninth or tenth century. The oldest MS. of ^Eschylus and
Sophocles, that from which all the others are believed to
have been copied, directly or indirectly, is of the tenth or
eleventh century ; the oldest MS. of Euripides is of the
twelfth. For the New Testament, on the other hand, we
have MSS. more or less complete, written in uncial or
capital letters, and ranging from the fourth to the tenth
century, of the Gospels twenty-eight, besides twenty-nine
small fragments ; of the Acts and Catholic Epistles ten,
besides six small fragments ; of the Pauline Epistles eleven,
besides nine small fragments ; and of the Revelation five.
All of these have been most thoroughly collated, and the
text of the most important of them has been published.
One of these MSS., the Sinaitic. containing the whole of the
New Testament, and another, the Vatican (B), containing
much the larger part of it, were written as early, probably,
as the middle of the fourth century ; two others, the Alex-
andrine (A) and the Ephraem (C), belong to about the middle
of the fifth ; of which date are two more (Q and T), contain-
ing considerable portions of the Gospels. A very remark-
able MS. of the Gospels and Acts, the Cambridge MS. or
Codex Bezae, belongs to the sixth century, as do E of the
212 CRMICAL ESSAYS
Acts and D of the Pauline Epistles, also N, P, R, Z, of the
Gospels and H of the Epistles (fragmentary). I pass by
a number of small but valuable fragments of the fifth and
sixth centuries. As to the cursive MSS., ranging from the
tenth century to the sixteenth, we have of the Gospels more
than six hundred ; of the Acts over two hundred ; of the
Pauline Epistles nearly three hundred ; of the Revelation
more than one hundred, — not reckoning the Lectionaries or
MSS. containing the lessons from the Gospels, Acts, and
Epistles read in the service of the church, of which there
are more than four hundred. Of these cursive MSS. it is
true that the great majority are of comparatively small
value; and many have been imperfectly collated or only
inspected. Some twenty or thirty of them, however, are
of exceptional value — a few of very great value — for their
agreement with the most ancient authorities.
But this is only a part of our critical materials. The
translations of the New Testament, made at an early date
for the benefit of Christian converts ignorant of Greek, and
the very numerous quotations by a series of writers from
the second century onwards, represent the text current in
widely separated regions of the Christian world, and are
often of the highest importance in determining questions
of reading. Many of these authorities go back to a date
one or two centuries earlier than our oldest MSS. Of the
ancient versions, the Old Latin and the Curetonian Syriac
belong to the second century ; the two Egyptian versions,
the Coptic or Memphitic and the Sahidic or Thebaic, prob-
ably to the earlier part of the third ; the Peshito Syriac in
its present form perhaps to the beginning of the fourth;
in the latter part of the same century, we have the Gothic
and the Latin Vulgate, and perhaps the Aethiopic ; in the
fifth century, the Armenian and the Jerusalem Syriac ; and,
in the sixth, the Philoxenian Syriac, revised by Thomas of
Harkel, a.d. 6i6: to say nothing of several later versions.
Since the beginning of the present century, thoroughly
critical editions of the Greek Testament have been pub-
lished by such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischen-
THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 213
dorf, and Tregelles, in which the rich materials collected
by generations of scholars have been used for the improve-
ment of the text ; we have learned how to estimate the
comparative value of our authorities ; the principles of text-
ual criticism have been in a good measure settled ; the more
important questions in regard to the text have been dis-
cussed, and there has been a steadily growing agreement of
the ablest critics in regard to them.
With this view of what has been done in the way of
preparation, we will consider, finally : —
4. The ground for expecting a great imt)rovevient in the text
from the work nozu undertaken by the British and American
Revision Committees. On this little needs now to be said.
We have seen that the text from which the common Eng-
lish version was made contains many known errors, and
that our present means of correcting it are ample. The
work of revision is in the hands of a body of the best Chris-
tian scholars in England and America, and their duty to
the Christian public is plain. The composition of the Com-
mittees, and the rules which they follow, are such that we
may be sure that changes will not be made rashly ; on the
other hand, we may be confident that the work will be done
honestly and faithfully. When an important reading is
clearly a mistake of copyists, it will be fearlessly discarded ;
when it is doubtful, the doubtfulness will be noted in the
margin ; and the common English reader will at last have
the benefit of the devoted labors of such scholars as Mill,
Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischcndorf, and
Tregelles, who have contributed so much to the restoration
of the text of the New Testament to its original purity. On
the English Committee itself there are at least three men
who deserve to be ranked with those I have named : Pro-
fessor Westcott and Dr. Hort, two of the best scholars that
England has produced, who have given more than twenty
years to the preparation of a critical edition of the Greek
Testament ; and Dr. Scrivener, whose labors in the colla-
tion and publication of important MSS. have earned the
gratitude of all Biblical scholars. Professor Lightfoot is
214 CRITICAL ESSAYS
another scholar of the highest eminence who has given
much attention to the subject of textual criticism. We
may rely upon it that such men as these, and such men
as constitute the American Committee, whom I need not
name, will not act hastily in a matter like this, and will not,
on the other hand, "handle the word of God deceitfully,*' or
suffer it to be adulterated through a weak and short-sighted
timidity.
One remark may be added. All statements about the
action of the Revision Committee in regard to any particu-
lar passage are wholly premature and unauthorized, for this
reason, if for no other, that their work is not yet ended.
When the result of their labors shall be published, it will
be strange if it does not meet with some ignorant and
bigoted criticism ; but I feel sure that all intelligent and
fair-minded scholars will emphatically indorse the judgment
of Dr. Wcstcott, expressed in the Preface to the second
edition of his History of the English Bible (1872), "that in
no parallel case have the readings of the original texts to
be translated been discussed and determined with equal
care, thorouu;hness, and candor."
As regards the text of the Old Testament, the MSS. col-
lated in the last century by Kennicott and De' Rossi all
fall within the Masoretic period, and present for the most
part only trivial variations. In general, our means of cor-
recting the Hebrew text followed by our translators are
very far inferior to those which we possess in the case of
the Greek text of the New Testament, and but few changes
on this ground are to be expected in the revised translation
of the canonical books.
XI.
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION.
[Originally printed as three articles io the Sunday School Times for May 28, June 4, and
June II, 1881.]
A VERY important part of the work of the new revision
has consisted in the settlement of the Greek text to be
followed in the translation. This was a duty which could
not be evaded. To undertake to correct merely the mis-
translations in the common English version, without refer-
ence to the question of the genuineness of the text, would
be equivalent to saying that, while the mistakes of transla-
tors must be rectified, those of transcribers and editors
should be regarded as sacred. It would be deliberately im-
posing on the Christian public hundreds of readings which
all intelligent scholars, on the ground of decisive evidence,
now agree in rejecting as spurious.
That there should be many mistakes in our MSS. of the
Greek New Testament, as there are in all other MSS. of
ancient authors, and that a portion of these mistakes should
be capable of correction only by the comparison of many
different copies, was inevitable in the nature of things,
unless a perpatual miracle should be wrought. That such
a miracle has not been wrought is shown by the multitude
of "various readings" which a comparison of copies has
actually brought to light, the number of which was roughly
reckoned at thirty thousand in the days of Mill (1707), and
may now be estimated at not fewer than one hundred
thousand.
This host of various readings may startle one who is
not acquainted with the subject, and he may imagine that
the whole text of the New Testament is thus rendered
uncertain. But a careful analysis will show that nineteen-
2l6 CRITICAL ESSAYS
twentieths of these are of no more consequence than the
palpable errata in the first proof of a modern printer ; they
have so little authority, or are so manifestly false, that they
may be at once dismissed from consideration. Of those
which remain, probably nine-tenths are of no importance as
regards the sense; the diffeiences either cannot be repre-
sented in a translation, or affect the form of expression
merely, not the essential meaning of the sentence. Though
the corrections made by the revisers in the Greek text of
the New Testament followed by our translators probably ex-
ceed two thousand, hardly one-tenth of them, perhaps not
one-twentieth, will be noticed by the ordinary reader. Of
the small residue, many are indeed of sufficient interest and
importance to constitute one of the strongest reasons for
making a new revision, which should no longer suffer the
known errors of copyists to take the place of the words
of the evangelists and apostles. But the chief value of
the work accomplished by the self-denying scholars who
have spent so much tim^ an J labor in the search for MSS.,
and in their collation or publication, docs not consist, after
all, in the corrections of the text which have resulted from
their researches. These corrections may affect a few of
the passi'^es w'.iich have been relied on for the support of
certain doctrines, but not to such an extent as essentially
to alter the state of the question. Still less is any ques-
tion of Christian duty touched by the multitude of various
readings. The greatest service which the scholars who
have devoted themselves to critical studies and the collec-
tion of critical materials have rendered, has been the estab-
lishment of the fact that, on the whole, the New Testament
writings have come down to us in a text remarkably free
from important corruptions, even in the late and inferior
MSS. on which the so-called " Received Text " was founded ;
while the helps which we now possess for restoring it to
its primitive purity far exceed those which we enjoy in the
case of any important classical author whose works have
come down to us. The multitude of ** various readin<rs."
which to the thoughtless or ignorant seems so alarming, is
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 217
simply the result of the extraordinary richness and variety
of our critical resources.
At this point, it may be well to illustrate, by a brief state-
ment, the difference between the position of the present
revisers and King James's translators two hundred and
seventy years ago, as regards a critical knowledge of the
Greek text of the New Testament. The translators or
revisers of 1611 followed strictly no one edition of the
Greek Testament, though their revision seems to agree more
closely, on the whole, with Bezas later editions (1588 and
1598) than with any other. But Beza's various editions
(1565-98, folio, 1 565-1604, 8vo) were founded miinly on
Robert Stephens's editions of 1550 and 1551. For those
editions Stephens had a very imperfect collation of fifteen
MSS. from the Royal Library at Paris, and of the Complu-
tensian Polyglott, whose readings were given in his margin.
Of his MSS., ten contained the Gospels, eight the Acts and
Epistles, and two the Apocalypse. Two of these MSS. of
the Gospels were valuable (D and L), but he made very
little use of them ; indeed, the MS. readings given in his
margin seem in general to have served rather for show
than for use. Scrivener has noted one hundred and nine-
teen places in which his text is in opposition to all of them.
His text is, in fact, substantially formed from the last edi-
tions of Erasmus (1527-35), which differ very slightly from
each other. Now what was Erasmus's critical apparatus.^
In the Gospels, he had. all told, three MSS., — one of the
tenth century, and a good one, but which he hardly ever fol-
lowed, because its text seemed so peculiar that he was afraid
of it. He used as the basis of his text in the Gospels an
inferior MS. of the fifteenth century. In the Acts and
Catholic Epistles, he had four modern MSS. ; in the Pauline
Epistles, five; in the Revelation, only one, an inaccurate
copy of which was used by the printer. This MS. was
mutilated, lacking the last six verses of the book, which
Erasmus supplied by translating back from the Latin Vul-
gate into pretty bad Greek. This was not all. In other
passages he took the liberty of correcting or supplementing
2l8 CRITICAL BSSAVS
his text from the Latin Vulgate, Beza occasionally took a
similar liberty ; and the result is, that in a considerable
number of cases, not, indeed, in giineral, of much impor-
tance, the reading of the common English version is sup-
porUd by no known Greek MS., but rests on an error of
Erasmus or Beza (for example, Acts ix. 5, 6; Rom. vii. 6;
2 Cor. i. 6 ; I Pec. iii. 20 ; Rev. i. 9, 11; ii. 3, 20, 24 ; iii. 2 ;
V. 10, 14; XV. 3 ; xvi. 5 ; xvii. 8, 16; xviii. 2, etc.). Such is
the foundation of the text on which the so-called Authorized
Version was based.
It is impossible, without entering itito tedious detail, to
give an adequate idea of the immense accession to our
critical resources which has resulted from the lifelong labors
of generations of scholars since our common version was
made. I will merely allude to Mill's edition of the Greek
Testament (1707) on which he spent thirty years, mainly in
collecting materials; to Bengcl (1734). who did much to
establish correct principles of criticism ; to Wetstein, whose
magnificent edition of the Greek Testament (1751-52), in
two folio volumes, represents the arduous labor of forty
years, and who added greatly to our knowledge of MSS.
and the quotations of the Christian Fathers ; and to the
extensive collations of MSS. by Alter, Birch, with his asso-
ciates, and Matthtci, the latter of whom alone carefully exam-
ined more than one hundred. Above all his predecessors,
Griesbach stands pre-eminent. He not only added much
to the mitcrials alreidy collected, but was the first to turn
them to proper account in the correction of the Received
Text, and in critical tact has perhaps been excelled by none
of chose who have succeeded him. After Griesbach. who
links the last Co the present century, we may name the
Roman Catholic Scholz, a poor critic, but who brought to
light and partially c^^ated many hundreds of MSS, before
undescribed; Lachmann, the eminent classical scholar.
whose original genius gave a new impulse to textual criti-
cism; Scrivener, to whom we are indebted for excellent
editions of two important uncial MSS, (the Codex Bezae or
Cambridge MS. of the Gospels and the Acts, and the Codex
Augiensis of the Pauline Epistles), and for the careful col-
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 219
lation of about seventy cursive MSS. ; and, above all, Tisch-
endorf and Tregelles, whose indefatigable labors have made
an epoch in the history of New Testament criticism. To
describe these labors here in detail is utterly out of the
question. It may suffice to say that, for the purpose of
enlarging and perfecting our critical apparatus, Tischendorf
visited nearly all the principal libraries of Europe, collating
or copying for publication the most important MSS. of the
New Testament, whose text had not before been printed.
Besides this, he took three journeys to the East, bringing
home rich MS. treasures, and crowning all with the mag-
nificent discovery of the Sinai MS. of the fourth century,
containing the New Testament absolutely complete. He
spent more than eight years in these travels and collations.
His editions of the texts of Biblical MSS. published by him
for the first time, or for the first time accurately, comprise
no less than seventeen large quarto and five folio volumes,
not counting the Anccdota Sacra et Profana and the Notitia
editionis Codicis Sinaiticiy two quarto volumes containing
descriptions or collations of many n^w MSS. Many of his
collations or copies of important MSS. still remain unpub-
lished, though used in his last critical edition of the Greek
Testament. Between the years 1840 and 1873, he issued
as many as twenty-four editions of the Greek New Testa-
ment, including the reimpressions of his stereotyped editio
acadctnica. Only four of these editions, however, those of
1841, 1849, 1859, and 1869-72, are independently important
as marking great advances in the acquisition of new mate-
rials. The mere catalogue of Tischendorf's publications,
prepared by Dr. Gregory for the Bibliotheca Sacra (Janu-
ary, 1876), most of them relating to Biblical criticism, covers
more than ten octavo pages.*
Dr. Tregelles, like Tischendorf, visited many of the prin-
cipal European libraries, making three journeys to the Con-
tinent for this purpose, and collated with extreme care the
most important uncial MSS. and a number of very valuable
cursives. He compared his collations with those of Tischen-
[*See also Dr. Gregory's Prolegom;:na to Tischendorf's Editio Octava Critica Maior^
pp. 7-M-l
2 20 CRITICAL ESSA\^
dorf, and, in case of any discrepancy, settled the question
by a re-examination of the MS. The only new MS. which
he published was the Codex Zacynthius, a palimpsest of
great value belonging to the Library of the British and
Foreign Bible Society, and containing about a third of the
Gospel of Luke. He issued but one edition of the Greek
Testament (1857-72), and was disabled by paralysis from
personally completing the Prolegomena or Introduction to
this, and from supplying the needful corrections and addi-
tions. His accuracy in the statement of his authorities, and
the new material incorporated in the notes, give the work
great value, and the arrangement of the matter is very lucid.
But though not to be compared with Tischendorf in the
extent of his contributions to our stock of critical material.
Dr. Tregelles did far more than his rival to illustrate and
enforce the principles on which a critical edition of the
Greek Testament should bj based, and to establish, by what
he called "comparative criticism.'* the right of a few of the
oldest MSS., in many cases, to outweigh a vast numerical
majority of later authorities. He did far more, probably,
than any other writer, to overcome the blind and unreason-
ing prejuiice which so long existed in England in favor of
the so-called *' Received Text."
A rough account of the number of Greek MSS. of the
New Testament now known will give some idea of the vast
enlargement of our critical materials since the time when
the common English version was made. We have now for
the Gospels sixty uncials (reckoning the six Psalters, etc.,
which contain the hymns in Luke i. 46-55, 68-79, i'- 29-32),
ranging from the fourth century to the tenth, and more than
six hundred cursives, dating from the tenth century to the
sixteenth; for the Acts and Catholic Epistles, seventeen
uncials an I ov^er two hundred cursives; for the Pauline
Epistles, twenty uncials and over two hundred and eighty
cursives ; for the Revelation, five uncials and about one
hundred cursives. To these are to be added over three
hundred and forty Evangelistaries and about eighty Praxa-
postoli ; that is, MSS. containing the Lessons from the
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 221
Gospels and the Acts and Epistles read in the service of
the church. This very rough statement, however, requires
much qualification to prevent a false impression, as more
than half of the uncials are mere fragments, though very
valuable fragments, and most of the others are more or less
mutilated ; while a large majority of the cursives have been
but partially collated, or only inspected. But all of the
uncials, incomparably the most valuable part of the appara-
tus, have been thoroughly collated (with the exception of
the recently discovered Codex Rossanensis) ; indeed, the
whole text of the most valuable among them has been
published.*
There is another very important class of our critical docu-
ments which can be noticed only in the briefest manner.
The translations of the New Testament into different lan-
guages, made at aft early date for the benefit of Christian
converts ignorant of Greek, — the ancient versions as they
are commonly termed, — represent the text current in widely
separated regions of the Christian world, and are often of
the highest importance in settling questions of textual criti-
cism. Two of these versions, the Old Latin and the Cure-
tonian Syriac, belong to the second century ; two, the Mem-
phitic or Coptic, and the Thebaic or Sahidic, to the earlier
part of the third ; four more, the Peshito Syriac in its pres-
ent form, the Gothic, the Latin Vulgate, and the Aethiopic
(perhaps) to the fourth ; two, the Armenian and the Jeru-
salem Syriac, to the fifth ; and there are several other later
versions of considerable importance, as the Philoxenian or
Harclean Syriac and the Slavonic. The earlier editors of
the Greek Testament knew none of these except the Vul-
gate and the Peshito, and the former only in a very corrupt
text. They made little use of either of them, except occa-
sionally to corrupt the Greek text from the more familiar
Vulgate. The Curetonian Syriac is a recent discovery ;
[*See SdufiTs Com^nian to the Greek Testament and English yerswn, p. toi sq., and
the Prolegomeoa to Tlschendorfs eighth edition, p. 338. It may be added that a collation of the
Gospdsof Matthew and Mark, as g^ven in the Codex Rossanensis, has been published in Geb-
hardt and Hamack*s Texte und Untersuchungen^ u. s. w. Bd. I. Heft 4; compare Professor
Sanday** Essay in Stttdia BMica (Oxford, 1885), pp. 103-iia ; and p. 33S below. J
222 CRITICAL ESSAYS
and the value of this and of the other early versions in text-
ual criticism can hardly be overestimated. Our knowledge
of the Old Latin version or versions has been very greatly
extended by the labors of scholars in the present century in
connection with the discovery of new MSS.
A third and also very important class of our authorities
is the numerous quotations of the New Testament by early
Christian writers, many of them one or two centuries earlier
than the date of our oldest MSS. In respect to these,
though Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Sabatier, Griesbach, Mat-
tha^i, and others, had made extensive collections, our criti-
cal apparatus has been greatly augmented by the labors of
Tischendorf and Tregelles.
The most valuable result of these vast accessions to our
critical apparatus has been indirect rather than direct. It
has enabled us to trace the outlines of the history of the
text ; to determine, approximately, the relative value of our
different authorities and their distinguishing characteristics ;
it has enabled us to establish on a solid foundation certain
principles of criticism^ which serve as a guide through the
labyrinth of conflicting testimonies.
A careful study of the occasions of error in copying is an
important preparation for the decision of many questions in
textual criticism. The way in which the oldest MSS. were
generally written, with no spaces between the words except
at the end of a long paragraph (where a space about half
the width of a capital letter is often left in the Vatican MS.),
no distinction of the beginning of sentences by larger
initial letters, with very few points, perhaps none for a
whole page, and no accents or breathings, greatly increased
the liability to mistakes in transcription. How easy it is to
make such mistakes, even under favorable circumstances, is
well known to every proof-reader. Many of the occasions of
error in copying MSS. — mistakes of the eye, the ear, and
of memory — affect in a similar manner the work of the
printer ; so that the critical examination of typographical
errors throws no little light on some of the problems pre-
sented by the variations in ancient MSS. The proper
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 223
comparison, indeed, would be between the errors in a MS.
and those in the compositor's first proof ; but it may not
be without interest to illustrate by examples some of the
occasions of error common to MSS. and printed books.
In the year 1833 there was published at Oxford an
'• Exact Reprint " of what was then supposed to be the first
edition of the common English version of the Bible, printed
in 161 1. (Two editions were actually printed that year;
and which of these is the one represented in the *' Exact
Reprint" is still in dispute.*) To this is prefixed a collation
of the text with that of one of the editions of 1613. The
variations noted (about 412 in all), which do not include
mere differences in spelling, occupy seven or eight pages
quarto. From these I select a few illustrations of different
classes of mistakes.
The first is an example of omission occasioned by what is
called IiomocoteleutoHy that is, the "like ending" of succes-
sive words or clauses. In the edition of 1611, John xx. 25
reads thus: "Except I shall see in his hands the print
of the nailes, and put my finger into the print of the nailes,
and thrust my hand into his side," etc. Here, in the edi-
tion of 1613, the words "and put my finger into the print
of the nailes" are omitted. The compositor having set up
the first clause of the verse, ending with " the print of the
nailes," glances back to his text, and, seeing the second
"print of the nailes," supposes that is what he has just put
in type, and goes on with the "and thrust," unconsciously
omitting the second clause. This kind of mistake occurs
very frequently in MSS. In the edition of 161 3, clauses
were also accidentally omitted on account of the recurrence
of the same word in i Kings iii. 15, Hab. ii. 5, Matt. xiii.
8 and xvi. 11, and two whole verses (vv. 13, 14) were
dropped in the sixteenth chapter of Ecclcsiasticus, owing
to the fact that verses 12 and 14 each end with the phrase
"according to his workes." In Blayney's edition of 1769,
intended to be a standard, seventeen words were inadver-
tently omitted in Rev. xviii. 22, on account of the recur-
rence of the word "more." In the Sinaitic MS., omissions
•iSavieatt{AiUkorixed Edition r/ the Eng. Bible, Cambr. 18S4, p 5 ff.i th.nks th.- second \
324 CRITICAL ESSAYS
from this cause are very numerous; some of the most
remarkable will be found at Matt. xxvi. 62, 63 ; Mark x. 35,
37 ; Luke x. 32 ; John xix. 20, 21 ; Acts xiv. 20, 21 ; Eph. ii.
7 ; Rev. iv. 3. In the Alexandrian MS., four whole verses
(i Cor. vi. 3-6) are omitted on account of the like ending of
the last word in verse 2 and the last in verse 6. In i John
ii. 23, in our common English version the last clause is
printed in italics as spurious, or of doubtful genuineness.
It is unquestionably genuine ; its accidental omission in
many MSS. being occasioned by the fact that in the orig-
inal it ends with the same words as the first clause.
The omission of a small word where the sense is not
materially affected is very common in the English Bible of
161 3 referred to above as compared with the edition of
161 1 ; and it also occurs in some places where the sense
is essentially changed by it ; for example, 2 Tim. iv. 16,
where we read, ** I pray God that it may be laid to their
charge," instead of "may not be laid.** In other passages,
as Lev. xvii. 14; Neh. x. 31 ; Ezek. xxiv. 7; i Cor. xi. 17,
this important little word not is found in one of these edi-
tions and not in the other. In an edition of the English
Bible printed in 1632 ['31 ?], as is well known, the word not
was omitted from the seventh commandment ; and another
edition reads in i Cor. vi. 9, " Know ye not that the unright-
eous shall inherit the kingdom of God > "
We have seen how the recurrence of the same word, or
of the same ending of a word, may occasion an omission.
It may also occasion the unconscious repetition of a clause
or sentence. We have a very curious example of this in
Exod. xiv. 10 in the English Bible of 161 1 according to the
Oxford " Exact Reprint," where twenty-one words were re-
peated by accident, thus : —
1611. 1613.
And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the
children of Israel lift vp their eyes, and children of Israel lift vp their eves,
behold, the Egyptians marched after and behold, the Egyptians marched
them, and they were sore afraid : and after them, and thev were sore afraid :
the children of Israel lift vp their eyes, and the children of Israel cried out
and beholds, the Egyptian -» marched vntotheLjrd.
after them, and thev were sore afraid ;
and ihe chiklren of Israel cried out
vnto the Lord.
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 225
Here we perceive that the cause of the error, not surprising
in a first proof, but strangely uncorrected, was the recur-
rence of the words "the children of Israel" in two successive
parts of a long sentence. The sleepy compositor, having
set up the verse as far as the second *' children of Israel"
(inclusive), looked back to his text, and seeing the first
"children of Israel,'* which he supposed was what he had
just put in type, went on with the words following.
There are several remarkable examples of such repetition
in the Vatican MS. ; one in Rom. iv. 4, 5, another in 2 Cor.
iii. 14, 15; in each case the origin of the error will appear
on consulting the Greek. It is fortunate on one account
that these mistakes were made, as it is only in such dupli-
cated passages that the beautiful original writing has pre-
ser\^ed its primitive form, a later hand having elsewhere
retouched the letters and added accents and breathings.
There is a more extraordinary case of this kind in the
Sinaitic MS., i Thess. ii. 13, 14, where twenty-five words
are repeated on account of the recurrence of rov deov, ** of
God." This mistake was, however, corrected by the con-
temporary reviser of the MS. In a few other instances, as
Luke xvii. 16, Eph. vi. 3, a verse has been carelessly repeated
in the Codex Sinaiticus.
An unconscious substitution of one word for another
equivalent in meaning often occurs in copying, and even in
printing. In such cases, a familiar or easy form of expres-
sion usually takes the place of one which is harsh or unusual.
Thus, in Gen. xxvii. 44, the edition of 161 1 reads, correctly,
"until thy brother's furie tume away" ; the edition of 161 3
substitutes ** passe away"; Prov. xiv. 15, "The simple
belecvetli every word" (1611) becomes "The simple beleev:
every word" (1613); Mark xii. 13, "And they scud vnto
him certaine of the Pharisees," reads in the edition of 161 3
" they sent^^ etc. Here the original settles the true reading
of the English version ; were it otherwise, the maxim, "The
more difficult reading is to be preferred," would lead to the
same result.
More extraordinary substitutions sometimes occur, in
2 26 CRITICAL ESSAYS
which a word suggested to the mind of the transcriber or
printer by the preceding context is unconsciously set in the
place of the true word. This may be the origin of a mis-
print which has usurped the place of the true reading in all
copies of our common English version; namely, "the pro-
fession of owe faith,'' in Heb. x. 23, for "the profession of
our hope'' The Greek word here represented by "faith"
is everywhere else in the New Testament rendered " hope,'*
and has no other meaning. It is so rendered in Heb. x.
23, in all the earlier English versions. It is incredible that
our translators, in opposition to the original, deliberately
changed the "hope" of their predecessors to "faith.** As
a misprint, which would easily escape correction, it may
have originated in the expression "assurance of faith ** in the
preceding verse, putting the thought of " faith ** into the
mind of the type-setter, and thus making it natural for him to
substitute the common expression, "profession of faith," for
the unusual one, "profession of hope." This may also have
been facilitated by the occurrence of the word "faithful ** in
the following clause. We have a somewhat similar substitu-
tion in the edition of 1613 of ''shincd through darkenesse'*
for " walked through darkenesse *' in Job xxix. 3, the word
"shined" occurring in the preceding clause. In John x. 25,
" I told you, and ye believed not,*' " believed *' is doubtless
a printer's mistake, very natural after "told,** for "believe.**
The verb is in the present tense in the Greek, with no vari-
ous reading, and all the earlier English versions read " be-
lieve.'* It cannot be reasonably supposed that our trans-
lators deliberately altered this correct rendering, while, as an
unintentional change after a past tense, it would be more
likely to occur than "sent" for "send" and "said** for
"say," which we find in the Bible of 1613 at Mark xii. 13, 14.
We find occasional examples of the unconscious addition
of words not belonging to the text, but merely suggested by
the context. In Gen. xv. 24, in the edition of 161 1, we read
" that which the yong men have eaten, and the portion of
the men that went with mee." The edition of 1613 reads
" the portion of the olde vciQ,\\ that went with mee.*' There
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 227
is no authority for **olde"; the mention of the j^//;/^ men
suggested by contrast the idea of old men, and thus the in-
sertion was innocently made. Perhaps such is the origin in
the Greek text of the addition "openly" in Matt. vi. 4, 6,
18, rightly rejected by the Revisers as spurious. In Matt.
XXV. 6, the true text reads, " Behold, the bridegroom ! " the
addition **cometh," found in the great mass of the later MSS.,
was not probably a deliberate interpolation, but what the
mind supplied was unconsciously added to the text.
These illustrations from the English Bible of some occa-
sions of error in copying have been carried much further
than was intended, and many things which they suggest
must be passed over. An examination of the whole list of
differences between the editions of 161 1 and 1613 would
show the great value of such a comparison for the correction
of the errors of both. In the case of variations that affect
the sense, the mere comparison, without reference to the orig-
inal Hebrew or Greek, would in most cases at once deter-
mine the true reading. The addition of another independent
early copy, though it would add to the number of variations,
would settle most of the remaining questions. Indeed, the
grosser errors would at once suggest their own correction.
The analogy between the early printed editions of Kin^^
James's version as compared with modern copies, and the
oldest MSS. of the New Testament as compared with those
from six to twelve hundred years later, obviously fails in
many important respects ; but, as no one would dispute
the pre-eminent value of these editions in an investigation
of the text of our translators, notwithstanding their gross
misprints, the pre-eminent value of our oldest MSS. is
not destroyed by the fact that they each contain many
errors of the scribe. The carelessness of the copyist im-
I>airs the value of a MS. where its testimony is single, and
especially when the apparent error is one to which he
is proved to have been prone ; but a comparison with
other MSS., or often the nature of the error itself, will
enable us to correct with confidence these transcriptional
mistakes, and thus reach a text incomparably purer than
228 CRITICAL ESSAYS
that presented by the great mass of late MSS. Such
arguments as writers like Mr. Burgon use against the
authority of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., even if not
founded on false premises, as they are to a large extent,
would simply destroy the authority of all our MSS., and a
fortiori that of the ancient versions and the quotations found
in early Christian writers. We may learn much from an
honest witness, even if he is not infallible ; and there can
be no possible doubt that the New Testament scribes were
in general honest.
In considering the principles of criticism which have gov-
erned the Revisers in determining the Greek text, it will be
better to begin with concrete examples which serve to illus-
trate them than to state them baldly beforehand in an
abstract form.
An instructive example for our purpose will be found in
the quotations from Isa. xxix. 13 in Matt. xv. 8. This
reads in the Revised Version, " This people honoureth me
with their lips, but their heart is far from me " ; in the
Common Version, "This people drawcth nigh to me with
their mouthy and honoureth me with their lips, but their
heart," etc., the latter agreeing with the Septuagint in the
addition of the words here italicized. The shorter reading
is supported by five uncial MSS., }^ and B, — that is, the
Sinaitic and Vatican (of the fourth century), — D (the Codex
Bezae) and T*" (sixth century), and L, of the eighth century,
and two cursives, 33 (eleventh century) and 124 (twelfth
century) ; by the Old Latin version or versions (except the
MS. f, that is. Codex Brixianus) and the Vulgate, the Cure-
tonian and Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, Aethiopic, Arme-
nian, and Persic versions; by the quotations of the Gnostic
Ptolemy in the second century, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen repeatedly, who expressly remarks upon the reading,
Eusebius, Basil the Great (or Pseudo-Basil), Chrysostom,
Cyril of Alexandria, and of Tertullian, Cyprian, and the
Latin Fathers generally. Clement of Rome (first century)
quotes the passage in the shorter form, and so it is quote:!
in the spurious Second Epistle (or Homily) to the Corin-
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 229
thians ascribed to him (second century). On the other side
are fourteen uncials ; namely, C, the Ephraem palimpsest of
the fifth century, E of the eighth century, and the rest of
the ninth and tenth centuries, with several hundreds of cur-
sives, from the tenth to the sixteenth centuries ; the Latin
MS. f, representing a late revision of the Old Latin, and
the Harclean Syriac version, of the seventh century.
We observe first that, if the disputed clause be genu-
ine, its omission must have been the result either of accident
or of design. But it cannot have been omitted by accident
from authorities so numerous, so independent, and so wide-
spread, representing all the principal regions of the Christian
world. There is no homoeotcleiiton here. Nor is there the
slightest probability that it was omitted by design. Should
it be suggested that it was omitted to make the contrast
of the second and third clauses more forcible, it may be
replied that there is no evidence that the scribes dealt
in any such way with their MSS., or, rather, abundant
evidence that such was not their habit. Their work was
mechanical ; and they had some respect for the Scriptures.
Internal evidence is thus fatal to the clause ; and we cannot
fail to be struck at once with the immense preponderance of
the afuicnt evidence, of all sorts, against it.
But how can we explain the addition "> Very easily : it
came in from the Septuagint version. In the case of pas-
sages from the Old Testament quoted in the New, where
they are often cited freely, or abridged, it was customary to
note in the margin the differences between their text in the
Septuagint and in the New Testament. In a similar man-
ner, the report of Christ's sayings or doings in one Gospel
was often supplemented by marginal or interlinear notes
derived from the parallel passages in one or more of the
other Gospels. Glosses, or interpretations of difficult words,
were often given in the margin. Words or clauses acci-
dentally omitted by the scribe were also placed there.
Owing to this last circumstance, it frequently happened
that, in copying MSS. containing these various marginal
notes and glosses, the scribe either added them to his text,
230 CRITICAL ESSAYS
supposing them to have been accidentally left out by the
former copyist, or substituted them for the true text, sup-
posing them to be a correction. This has been a main
source of corruption in the later MSS. of the Gospels, as
will be seen hereafter. Taking all these things into con-
sideration, we may conclude with absolute confidence that
the shorter reading here is the true one.
The case is equally clear in the quotation from Isa. Ixi. i
in Luke iv. 18, 19, where the words "to heal the broken-
hearted" are omitted by the Revisers. They are wanting
in the uncial MSS. H, B, D, L, and the Codex Zacynthius
(eighth century), in the cursives 13, 33, 69, in most MSS. of
the Old Latin vers'on or versions and the best of the
Vulgate, also in the Memphitic, Aethiopic, and Armenian ^
versions, and in the quotations of Origen, Eusebius, Atha-
nasius, and Cyril of Alexandria. The omission of the
clause cannot be explained as the result either of accident
or design : it came in from the Septuagint. So in Matt. ii.
18, the words "lamentation and" before "weeping and
great mourning," in the quotation from Jer. xxxi. (Sept.
x.xxviii.) 15 are rightly omitted in the new version on the
authority of Jt, B, Z (the Dublin palimpsest, sixth century),
the cursives i, 22, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Memphitic, The-
baic, Peshito Syriac, and Jerusalem Syriac versions, and the
quotation of Justin Martyr (second century). The omission
here cannot be explained as the result either of accident or
design ; and the combination of very ancient evidence against
it, representing all quarters of the Christian world, is abso-
lutely decisive. It was introduced, as in the other cases,
from the Septuagint version. Other instances of the ampli-
fication of passages quoted from the Old Testament will be
found in the " Received Text " in Rom. xiii. 9 and Heb. xii.
20, where the clauses ** thou shalt not bear false witness "
and ** or thrust through with a dart " are omitted by the
Revisers. Heb. ii. 7 may be another case. See the Re-
visers' margin.
Looking back now at the documentary evidence in the
three passages examined, we see the great mass of the
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 23 1
cursive MSS. and all the later uncials agreeing in readings
which are certainly false. It becomes evident, then, that
our MSS. must be weighed, not counted. These are only
a few out of a vast multitude of examples in which the
force of evidence, internal and external, compels us to accept
a reading supported by a very small number of our oldest
MSS. in opposition to the great horde of later authorities.
This is particularly the case in questions of omission or
addition.
We have seen the manner in which abridged quotations
from the Old Testament in the Gospels are supplemented
in the later MSS. and the Received Text from the Septua-
gint. We shall now notice some examples of the way in
which the text of one Gospel has been interpolated by the
addition of words or clauses which belong to another, or in
which its language has been assimilated to that used in the
parallel passages.
In Matt. XX. 22, the common version reads : " Are ye
able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of [and to be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with] .^'' and
in verse 23, "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup [and be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with]." The
clauses here bracketed are wanting in J«{, B, D, L, Z, in
the cursives i and 22 (in verse 23 in six others besides
these), in most of the MSS. of the Old Latin version or
versions, the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, the Memphi-
tic, Thebaic, Aethiopic, and Persic versions, and in the quota-
tions of Origen, Epiphanius, John of Damascus, and the
Latin Fathers generally. Origen (in the early part of the
third century) expressly notes the fact that they were found
in Mark, but not in Matthew. In Mark x. 38, 39, none of
the MSS. or versions omit them. But, in Matthew. C alone
contains them, among our MSS. of the oldest class ; they
are found in thirteen of the later uncials (all but one of
them belonging to the ninth or tenth century), in the great
mass of cursives, in three MSS. of the Old Latin, in the
Peshito, Harclean Syriac, and Armenian versions, and in
the quotations of Chrysostom and Basil of Seleucia. (Most
of these authorities read "or" for "and" in verse 22.)
232 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Now, if these clauses belonged originally to the text, they
must have been omitted by accident or by design. They
could not have been omitted accidentally in so many and so
independent very early authorities, including all, so far as
we know, that represent the second and third centuries.
In the 23d verse, the last word in the Greek indeed agrees
in the last four letters with the word which ends the pre-
ceding clause ; but there is no such occasion for accidental
omission in verse 22. Nor can we discover any motive for
intentional omission of the clauses. On the other hand,
their insertion is readily explained by their existence in
Mark. We conclude then, with confidence, that the clauses
in question did not belong to the original text.
Among the numerous examples in which the text followed
in the common version has received similar additions from
the parallel passages are — Matt. i. 25, where for *'her first-
born son" the oldest authorities read simply "a son,** the
fuller form coming from Luke ii. 7, where all the MSS. have
it ; Matt. v. 44, where " bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you,** and " despitefully use you and,** are
from Luke vi. 27, 28 ; Matt. viii. 29, where "Jesus** is from
Mark v. 7 and Luke viii. 28; Maft. ix. 13 and Mark ii. 17,
where the words *'to repentance" are from Luke v. 32;
Matt. xvi. 3, where '' O ye hypocrites " is from Luke xii. 56.
In Matt. xvii. 21, the whole verse, probably, was introduced
from Mapk ix. 29, and Matt, xviii. 11 from Luke xix. 10.
In Matt. xix. 16. 17, the Revisers' text omits "good** before
" Master," and reads, " Why askest thou me concerning that
which is good .^ One there is who is good,** instead of,
** Why callest thou me good ? there is none good but one,
that is, God," the rea.lings of the Received Text being found
without any important variation in the parallel passages,
Mark x. 17, 18, Luke xviii. iS, 19. Here the readings
adopted in the new revision have in their favor a great
preponderance of the mos/ ajicicnt testimony of MSS., ver-
sions, and Fathers, while their origin in accident seems
impossible ; and the only apparent motive for deliberate
alteration, the avoiding of a theological difficulty, would be
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 233
equally strong in the case of the parallel passages m Mark
and Luke, where there is no trace of an attempt to remove
it in that way. The judgment of the Revisers is accord-
ingly supported by that of a great majority of the better
critics, as Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Alford, Green, Westcott and Hort, Porter, Da-
vidson, Scrivener, De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, Keil, etc. In
Matt. xix. 20, the words "from my youth up*' are derived
from Mark x. 20 and Luke xviii. 21; "or wife" in Matt.
xix. 29 and Mark x. 29, from Luke xviii. 29 ; the verse
Matt, xxiii. 14 is from Mark xii. 40 and Luke xx. 47 ; Matt,
xxvii. 35, " that it might be fulfilled " to the end, from John
xix. 24. In this last case, the question might arise whether
the omission was not accidental, on account of the recur-
rence of the word "lots"; but the authorities against the
sentence are so numerous and weighty, including all our
uncial MSS. but one, a host of cursives, most of the ancient
versions, and the commentators among the Christian
Fathers, that this explanation must be dismissed.
In Mark iii. 5 and Luke vi. 10, "whole, as the other,"
comes from Matt. xii. 13 ; in Mark vi. 11, "Verily I say unto
you," etc., to the end of the verse, from Matt. x. 15 ; Mark
vii. 16, " If any man have ears to hear, let him hear," may
be from Mark iv. 23, though substantially the same words
occur also in Matt. xi. 15 ; xiii. 9, 43 ; Mark iv. 9; Luke viii.
8; xiv. 35. They appear as an unquestionable interpolation
in many MSS. in Luke xii. 21 and xxi. 4. Mark xi. 26 is
probably from Matt. vi. 15, though the omission might pos-
sibly be occasioned by the like ending of the preceding
verse. Mark xv. 28 is from Luke xxii. 37.
In Luke iv. 2, "afterward" ; 4, "by every word of God";
5, " into a high mountain " ; 8, " get thee behind me, Satan,
for" etc., are from Matt. iv. 2, 4, 8, 10, and xvi. 23;
Luke v. 38, "and both are preserved," from Matt. ix. 17;
Luke viii. 48, "be of good comfort," is from Matt. ix. 22;
Luke viii. 54, "put them all out, and" is from Mark v. 40.
In Luke xi. 2, 4, the words or clauses in the Lord's Prayer
in the common version which are omitted in the revision are
234 CRITICAL ESSAYS
borrowed from Matt. vi. 9, 10, 13. We have tie express
testimony of Origen that they were wanting in the MSS. of
Luke in his day. In Luke xi. 44, " scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites," is from Matt, xxiii. 27 ; "desolate,** in Luke xiii.
35, from Matt, xxiii. 38 ; and the verse Luke xvii. 36 comes
doubtless from Matt. xxiv. 40. Homceotelcuton might indeed
operate here, but all the uncial MSS. except two omit the
verse. Our translators of 16 11 note in their margin that it
is "wanting in most of the Greek copies.** They followed
Beza against Erasmus and Stephens.
In John vi. 69, the true reading is, with little doubt, "thou
art the Holy One of God,** instead of, " thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God,** which comes from Matt. xvi. 16.
The text has often been amplified from the context, or
from other parts of the same Gospel. In many cases this
might be done by a transcriber unconsciously. So in Matt,
i. 6, "the king** has been added to the second "David** from
the preceding clause; the subject "Jesus," for example, is
supplied in Matt. iv. 12, 18, viii. 3, 5, 7, and often elsewhere;
"by them of old time** (more properly "/^ them,*' etc.) in
Matt. V. 27 is added from verse 21; "among the people"
in Matt. ix. 35 comes from iv. 23 ; "first" before "come,**
Matt. xvii. 1 1, is from verse 10, or perhaps from Mark ix. 12 ;
"idle," Matt. xx. 6, comes from verse 3, and the last two
clauses of verse 7 from verse 4, slightly modified ; " for many
be called, but few chosen," in Matt. xx. 16, is from Matt. xxii.
14. In Matt, xxviii. 9 (8), "And as they went to tell his
disciples " seems to have been added from the preceding
verses ; but accidental omission from homceoteleuton is pos-
sible. Mark vii. 8, "as the washing of pots and cups, and
many other such like things ye do,*' is from verses 4 and 13;
the verses Mark ix. 44, 46, are from verse 48, and the last
clause of verse 45 from verse 43 ; " whatsoever he saith,'*
Mark xi. 23, is from the beginning of the verse. In Luke i.
28, " blessed art thou among women ** is from verse 42 ; in
Luke ii. 40, " in spirit *' comes from i. 80 ; " to Jerusalem,"
Luke ii. 42, from verse 41 ; Luke vi. 45, " mm " and " treas-
ure of his heart " after "evil " are from the first part of the
THE GuSPELS I
23s
verse ; m John i, 27, the amplified form of the Received Text
is from verse 15.
Marginal notes or glosses have often been taken into the
text. Many of the supplements already mentioned were
probably first written in the margin. Examples of glosses
or marginal notes added to the text, or substituted for the
true reading, are Matt. v. 23 (probably), " without a cause " ;
vi. I, "alms" (see verse 2) for "righteousness"; Matt. xxv.
13, "wherein the Son of man coraeth" ; Mark vii. 2, "they
found fault " (inserted to remove a supposed difficulty in the
construction) ; Mark vii. 5, " unwashen " for " defiled " (liter-
aUy, common) hands ; Luke x. 35, " when he departed " ; xi.
54, " and seeking " and " that they might accuse him " (com-
pare Matt. xii. 10, Mark iii. 2) ; Luke xxii. 64, "struck him
on the face, and " ; Luke xxiii. 17, the whole verse ; John v,
16, "and sought to slay him " ; viii, 59, "going through the
midst of them, and so passed by" (compare Luke iv. 30);
xi. 41, " from the place where the dead was laid,"
The spurious additions to the text which we have thus
far considered are in one point of view of little importance,
as nearly all of them either grow out of the context by a
natural or necessary inferenci!, or are unquestionably gen-
uine in the Gospel from which they are derived. From
another point of view, however, they are pernicious. This
assimilation of the parallel passages of the Gospels by later
copyists is very misleading to one who is carefully studying
their relation to one another: it makes them appear much
less independent than they really are. The Revisers have
greatly aided the English reader who wishes to compare
the different Gospels intelligently: first, by the purification
of their text ; and, secondly, by the pains which they have
taken to translate the same Greek words and phrases, when
they are found in parallel passages of the Gospels, in the
same way. The common version is surprisingly faulty in
this respect, often leading the English reader to suppose
there is a difference in the original where there is really an
agreement, or an agreement where there is a difference.
But though the great majority of the later additions to
236 CRITICAL ESSAYS
the text of our Gospels originated in the way above ex-
plained, a certain number are from a source not yet men-
tioned. Our four Gospels are all only fragmentary sketches
of the life and teaching of Jesus (compare John xx. 20; [xxi.
25]). Sayings and doings of his which they have not re-
corded would naturally be handed down, in a more or less
imperfect form, by tradition. A considerable number of
such sayings, some of them probably genuine, are found in
early Christian writings. It would be strange if some of
these traditionary sayings or incidents did not find their
way, in certain MSS., into the text of our Gospels. This
has actually been the case, though to an extent far less than
one might have expected. In the MS. D of the Gospels, in
most MSS. of the Old Latin, and in the Curetonian Syriac
version, there is an addition of this kind of considerable
length at Matt. xx. 28, founded probably on a misreport of
the parable Luke xiv. 7-1 1. A saying respecting the Sab-
bath, ascribed to Christ, is inserted in D (the Codex Bezae)
at Luke vi. 4.
The longest and the most remarkable of the comparatively
few interpolations of this sort in the Received Text of the
Gospels is the passage relating to the woman taken in adul-
tery, John vii 53 to viii 11 inclusive. The Revisers have
separated this from the context by an extra space, and en-
closed it in brackets, with a marginal note stating the fact
that most of the ancient authorities omit it, and that those
which contain it vary much from each other. An over-
whelming preponderance of the weightiest testimony of all
kinds — of our oldest MSS., the ancient versions, and
tb.e Christian Fathers who have commented on the Gos-
pel— is against it; the only MS. of the oldest class which
contains it (D) gives it in a form differing much from that
in the mass of the later MSS., while these vary not a little
from one another. More than ten MSS. put it at the end
of the Gospel ; one inserts it after John vii. 36 ; four others
place it at the end of the twenty-nrst chapter of Luke. Very
many of the MSS. which have it. including five of the later
uncials, mark it either wnth asterisks or obeli as something
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 237
which ought to be added or omitted ; many other MSS. have
notes or scholia to the effect that it is '* wanting in most
copies/* or " in the more accurate copies *' ; or that it is
"found in some copies/* or "in the more ancient copies/* It
breaks the connection, and differs in style from the rest of
the Gospel. These phenomena are irreconcilable with the
supposition that it belonged originally to the text, and nearly
all critics of reputation agree in rejecting it as a later addi-
tion. This does not prove the story false ; on the contrary,
it has many internal marks of truth.
Another remarkable interpolation is that in John v. 3, 4,
respecting the descent of the angel at the pool of Bethesda,
where the ancient evidence against the questionable por-
tions is so strong, and the variations among the authorities
that contain them are so numerous, that there can be no
reasonable doubt of their spuriousness, though they were
early added to the text.
Another is the rebuke of James and John by Christ, as
given in the Received Text in Luke ix. 55. The evidence
against the genuineness of the words placed in the margin
by the Revisers is decisive, though in this case also the addi-
tion was made as early as the second century. But the
words bear the stamp of a genuine utterance of Christ in
their originality and their harmony with his character. The
clause "even as Elijah did " at the end of verse 54 is also
rightly rejected by the Revisers, as wanting in the best
MSS. and other ancient authorities, while its omission can-
not be reasonably explained as due either to accident or
design.
The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark present a
problem of much interest in connection with this subject.
They are retained by the Revisers without brackets, but
are separated by an extra space from the preceding, with a
marginal note mentioning their absence from the two oldest
Greek MSS. and other documents, and that some other
authorities have a still different ending of the Gospel. This
is not the place for entering into a discussion of the difficult
and complicated question concerning the genuineness of
238 CRITICAL ESSAYS
these verses, of which the Rev. (now Very Rev.) Mr. Burgon
is the most prominent advocate.
Of the passages of any considerable length in the Gos-
pels which the Revisers have been constrained to reject as
later additions to the text there remains only, I believe, the
doxology of the Lord's Prayer. Here an examination of
the evidence will satisfy us that the words could not have
been omitted by accident from the authorities in which they
are wanting ; and the beauty of the doxology is such that it
could not have been omitted by design. On the other hand,
its addition from the liturgical service of the church was
most natural. It is founded on i Chrqn. xxix. 11. In many
of the MSS. which contain it, it is written in red ink, to
distinguish it from the proper text ; in others, it appears only
in the margin : such MSS. mark the steps of its introduc-
tion. It is found in the newly discovered Codex Rossanen-
sis, of the latter part of the sixth or the beginning of the
seventh century; but this MS., to judge from the readings
which have been published, though better than the ninth
and tenth century uncials, represents a text far less pure
than that of our uncials of the fourth, fifth, and sixth cen-
turies, X, B, D, Z, which omit the doxology (A and C are
mutilated here), as do also the cursives i, 17, 118, 130, 209,
of which I, 118, and 209 are of exceptional excellence. The
testimony of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Memphitic ver-
sions against it, and the dead silence respecting it of the
early commentators on the Prayer, as Origen, TertuUian,
Cyprian, are of very great weight ; while its variations in
form in several of the versions and ancient quotations in
which something like it is found, diminish their authority as
witnesses in its favor.
This detailed, though incomplete, exhibition of supple-
ments to the original text from the Scptuagint version of
the Old Testament, from parallel passages in the Gospels,
from the context of the passage itself, or from similar pas-
sages in other parts of the same Gospel, from marginal notes
or glosses, and sometimes from tradition, is intended to
serve several purposes besides that of an enumeration of
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 239
remarkable changes of text in the new revision. A very
large part of these changes consists in the omission of words
or clauses, or even whole verses, which are found in the
common text ; in comparatively few cases have words been
added by the Revisers. To many readers these omissions
of familiar words will seem little less than sacrilege. One
little versed in criticism and unacquainted with MSS. is
likely to say to himself, **The presumption is altogether in
favor of the fuller text : transcribers might easily omit words
by accident, but they could only add by design ; and we can-
not suppose that any considerable number of them would
wilfully interpolate writings which they regarded as sacred,
especially after the warning in Rev. xxii. 18."
This view of the matter is very superficial. We have
seen in the few cases in which the evidence has been stated
that, if the longer form of the passage were the original,
we could not rationally explain the omissions as the result
either of accident or design. Very strange omissions will
sometimes occur through accident in a single MS. ; but the
chances will be perhaps a thousand to one against another
independent copyist's making the same blunder. In the
cases in which the evidence has not been stated, it would
in general be equally clear, I believe, on examination, that
the hypothesis that the longer form of the passage was gen-
uine would leave the omission entirely unaccountable ; while,
if the shorter form were the original, we should have a plau-
sible explanation of the addition. Each repeated instance
of this kind strengthens our conviction that in this expla-
nation we are on the right track. And we are confirmed
in our view when we find that the tendency to add rather
than to omit characterizes the MSS. of ancient classical
authors, and that the most eminent philologists fully recog-
nize the principle to which our New Testament examples
seem irresistibly to lead us. For example, Porson says in
his Letters to Travis (p. 149), "Perhaps you think it *an
absurd and affected idea ' that a marginal note can ever
creep into the text; yet I hope you are not so ignorant as
not to know that this has actually happened, not merely in
240 CRITICAL ESSAYS
hundreds or thousands, but in millions of places." He
then quotes Daillc and Bengel on this point, and adds,
" From this known propensity of transcribers to turn every-
thing into text which they found written in the margin of
their MSS. or between the lines, so many interpolations
have proceeded that at present the surest canon of criticism
is, Praefcratnr lectio brevior.'* (That is, "The shorter read-
ing is to be preferred.")
The cases which we have noticed are instructive in other
ways. When critically examined, they demonstrate the
superlative value of such MSS. as B, N, Z, D, L, C, and a
in the Gospel of Mark, in questions of omission or addition,
as compared with the mass of the later uncials and cursives.
They show that certain cursives are also of exceptional
value in such questions. They illustrate in some measure
the process by which the character of our different witnesses
may be tested. We find that their character is often differ-
ent in different books of the New Testament. We find that
the value of their testimony depends much on the nature
of the reading. We perceive that they fall more or less
distinctly into certain gronpSy representing certain tenden-
cies, and that this consideration is often important in weigh-
ing evidence. But these and other matters can only be
hinted at. Other classes of readings, which would also serv^e
to test the relative value and bring out the characteristics of
our different authorities, must be wholly passed over, at least
for the present, as this paper has already reached an inordi-
nate length.
XII.
ON THE READING "ONLY-BEGOTTEN GODr
IN JOHN I. i8.
\\TrH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENTS
OF DR. TREGELLES.*
[From the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1861.]
0c6v m}6t)jz kiipoKEv ircnrore ■ 6 finvoyevjjq vi6g [al. ^fof], 6 ov elq rdv K6?,irov rmt
narpd^, eKelvog k^rfy^aaro.
In John i. 1 8, which reads in the common version: "No
man hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,'*
it has long been known to scholars that important critical
authorities, instead of the expression o fwvoyevijg vl6g, "the
only-begotten Sofi,*' have the remarkable reading ^ovoycvfjq
^eog, "only-begotten God.** The MSS. that contain it,
though not numerous, are of the very highest rank, in-
cluding both the famous Vatican MS. and the newly dis-
covered Codex Sinaiticus of Tischendorf. This reading is
also found in several of the ancient versions, and has been
supposed to be attested by a great majority of the ancient
Fathers, both Greek and Latin. Though not adopted into
the text of any edition of the Greek Testament yet published,
its genuineness has been maintained by Dr. S. P. Tregelles,
the most eminent among English scholars in the department
of textual criticism ; and it will undoubtedly be presented as
the true reading in his long expected edition. It would also,
as Dr. Tregelles assures us, have been received by Lachmann
* An Introductitm to iht Ttxiual Criticism of the New Tcstavictti ; "with Atialyses^
etc., of the respective Book*. ... By the Rev. Thomas Hartwell Horne, B.D. The critical part
rewritten and the remainder revised and edited by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D. Second
Edition. London: Longpnan, etc., i860. 8vo. pp. xxvii., 801 ; pp. 751-784 being " Additions"
and " Postscript," which alone distinguish this from the former edition. These Additions, with the
Postscript, have also been published separately.
242 CRITICAL ESSAYS
into his text, had he been aware of the authorities by which
it is supported.
It is evident from this brief statement of the claims of
the reading fwvoyevi/^ Oed^, that the question of its genuineness
well deserves a critical investigation, while its theological
character gives it a special interest, which, however, must
not be suffered to bias our judgment. This investigation
is the more necessary in consequence of the circumstance
that, in respect to one very important branch of the evidence,
— the quotations of the passage by the ancient Fathers, —
no critical edition of the Greek Testament gives even a
tolerably complete and accurate account of the facts in the
case. On the contrary, the most important editions which
have been published since the time of Wetstein, as those of
Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Alford, not only neglect
to state a very large part of the evidence, but contain almost
incredible errors in regard to the authorities which they
professedly cite.* Many of these errors were repeated by
Dr. Tregellcs in his remarks on the passage in his Account
of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London,
1854), in which he maintained the genuineness of the reading
^t(5f.f His observations led to an examination of the evi-
dence on the subject by the present writer, the results of
which were published in a Note appended to the second
edition of Mr. Norton's Statement of Reasons for not
believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians (Boston, 1856), pp.
448-469.
I cannot better introduce the discussion proposed in the
present article than by quoting from the Note just referred
to a statement of some of the conclusions arrived at. After
mentioning the fact that Wetstein, in his note on the pas-
sage, has fallen into extraordinary errors, many of which
have been blindly copied by subsequent editors, it was
observed : —
♦ In his recent edition of the Greek Testament, Editio seftima critica major. Lips. 1859,
Tischendorf has considerably corrected and enlarged his former account of the evidence of the
Fathers on this passage. But his note is still ver>' defective, and contains importnnt mistakes.
t See pp. 234, 235.
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD " 243
One who should take the statements in VVetstein's note to be correct,
would suppose that not less than forty-four Greek and Latin writers, in
the first eight centuries, have quoted the passage in question with the
reading iiuvoytwi^ Oeoc, or um'geniius Dens; and that the number of distinct
quotations of this kind in their writings, taken together, is not far from
one hundred and thirty. I have examined with some care all the passages
specifically referred to by Wetstein, and the whole work, or collection of
works, cited, when his reference is general, — as *-^ Epiphaniiis duodecies,''
^^Hilarius de Trinit. passim," ''^ Ftdgentius plusquam vicies," not confining
my attention, however, to these particular passages or works. The fol-
lowing is the result of this examination. Of the forty-four writers cited
by Wetstein in support of the reading fiovoyn/)^ Oeot;, there are but four
who quote or refer to the passage with this reading only ; * four quote it
with both readings ; f «/»^ quote it with the reading i'/<Jf , or filius^ only,
except that in one of the quotations of Titus of Bostra v\hc drog occurs ; t
/wo repeatedly allude to it, — sometimes using the phrase *' only-begotten
God^^ and sometimes "only-begotten 6V>//," in connection with the words
"who is in the bosom of the Father," — but do not distirxtly quote it; ||
and twenty-five do not quote or allude to it at all.** Of the particular
passages referred to by Wetstein, a great majority have no bearing what-
ever on the subject, but merely contain the expression /novoyEiy^ Beoc, or
unigenitus Deus^ with no trace of an allusion to the text in question, —
an expression often occurring, as will hereafter appear, in writers who
abundantly and unequivocally quote John i. 18 with the reading tiof, or
filius. Indeed, in some of these passages we do not find even this expres-
sion, but only the term yevnrb^ [al. yiwjjrbq] Oeoq, or genitus Dens, applied
to Christft Sufficient evidence that these assertions are not made at
random will be given in what follows, though the mistakes of Wetstein
cannot here be all pointed out in detail.
We may now examine the witnesses brought forward by Dr. Tregelles.
... Of the twenty-five writers whom he has adduced in support of the
reading fiovoyevyg ^eof, but four, I believe, can be relied on with much
confidence, and even their testimony is far from unexceptionable ; three
nay be regarded as doubtfiil ; eight really support the common reading ;
•" It is thus quoted in the Excerpta Theodoti^ and also by Clement o*" Alexandria and Epipha-
lUtts. It appears to be once referred to in the Epistle of the second Synod of Ancyra."
t " Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, and Cyril of Alexandria."
\ " Eusdnus, Athanasius, Julian, Gregory Nazianzen, Titus of Bostra, Maximinus the Arian
Uahop, Hilary, Vigilius of Tapsa, Alcuin."
II " Gregory of Nyssa and Fulgentius."
•* " That is, all the remaining authorities cited by Wetstein, for which see his note."
ft ** As in the following: *Origents in Psalm, i. ap. Epiphanium,' see Epiphanius, Haer. Ixiv.
C. 7, 0pp. i. 53t*>, or Origen, Opp. ii. 526«; * Euscbius D. iv. 2,' i.e.^ Dcm. Evang. lib. iv. c. a;
'PnuUniius in Apotheosi/ viz. line 895: 'Claudianus Mamert. de statu animae, 1. a,' where lib.
L c. 3 most be the place intended."
> the passage ; and a'gA/ have neither quoted f
These statements were suppoited by a detailed exposition
of the facts in the case, accompanied in every instance by
precise references to the passages in the Fathers bearing on
the subject. In addition to the correction of these enormous
errors in respect to the evidence alleged for the reading I'^c,
I prockiced, as the result of original investigation, quotations
of the passage, supporting the reading wic. frotn no less than
eighteen Greek and six Latin ecclesiastical writers, whose
testimony had never before been adduced to this purpose in
any critical edition of the Greek Testament, — twelve or
thirteen of them belonging to the third and fourth centuries.
The examination made of the works of the Fathers enabled
me also to give the evidence much more fully and accurately
than had before been done in the case of many other writers
who had been cited, on one side or the other, in editions
of the Greek Testament. In this exposition of tiie evidence I
was scrupulously careful to mention not only every quotation
of the passage which I had found with the reading f^^i^. but
every allusion to it which might be imagined to favor this
reading, even in cases where it seemed clear that no real
argument could be founded on these allusions.
In the Postscript to the second edition of his Introduction
to the Textual Criticism of the Ne^o Testament (pp. 780, yil),
Dr. Tregelles has taken notice of my remarks on this pas-
sage, which "have led," as he says, "to a re-examination of
the whole of the evidence." After exhibiting the authorities
for the different readings, he says in a note : —
In this one Instance I have given at length the evidence for and
against the reading, so hs to show what authorities do really support
/loHjjTHjc flrof and what uphold iioi-nyi-vic vIm The statement is here given
just as it stands in my Greek Testament, with the precise references to the
Patristic citations.
The conclusion to which he comes is thus expressed ; —
it appears to be most clear that not only is ^mv"; f ir^' "(nc the a
reading of MSS. and some versions, but also of the Fathers generally;
ON THE READING " ONLY- BEGOTTEN GOD ' 245
for those that have both readings in the present copies of their works,
evidently do support that which is not in the later Greek Text, with which
those who copied their writings were familiar ; and the doubtful passages
must give way to the express mentions of Qtoq by the same writers as the
reading in this place.
Here a regard for the truth compels me to state some
facts which may give an unfavorable impression concerning
Dr. Tregelles's character for fairness and accuracy. No one
can regret this more than myself; and in simple justice to
a scholar whose services to Biblical criticism have been so
x'aluable, and who has often shown himself superior to the
influence of dogmatic prejudice, I must beg the reader not
to regard his note on John i. i8 as a specimen of his usual
manner of dealing with evidence.
Dr. Tregelles, it will be observed, professes to give at
length the testimony for and against the reading ^^k. In
doing this, he does not confine himself to the chronological
limit generally observed in his Greek Testament, so far as
the Fathers are concerned, but comes down to the latter
part of the eighth century, including the latest author
(namely, Alcuin) who has ever been cited in favor of the
reading " only-begotten God/' He leads us to expect a full
and accurate statement of the evidence on both sides, which,
in a case like this, it was unquestionably his duty to give.
How is it, then, in reality ?
I answer that, for some cause which I do not pretend to
explain, his account of the evidence is deceptive and un-
trustworthy. He has omitted to mention the greater part
of the facts in the case, though they were placed directly
before his eyes. In stating the evidence for the reading
^*<if. it is true, he has not been guilty of the sin of omission.
On the contrary, he not only appears to have availed himself
very freely of the matter which I had for the first time
collected that seemed to favor that reading, even copying
my references, in one instance at least, without verifica-
tion,* but he has repeated many mistakes in the evidence
•I had cited the Dialogue of Cyril, Quod Unus sit Christ us, Opp. Tom. V. P. i. p. 786e,
tor the reading Bed^, The reference should have been to p. 76S<- instead of p. j^t^. Dr. Tregelles
246 CRITICAL ESSAYS
alleged for this reading after they had been clearly pointed
out. He has referred, in various instances, to places in
different authors where John i. 18 is not quoted or even
alluded to, but which merely contain the expression /wvayevr,^
Oeo^, or unigenitus Deus^ applied to Christ by the writer, and
has intermixed these references indiscriminately with those
to actual quotations, thus leading the unwary reader to sup-
pose them to denote quotations, and to attach to them undue
weight.
But how fares the evidence on the other side.^ The
answer to this question may well astonish the reader. Of
the twenty-three Greek and thirteen Latin writers whom I
had cited as supporting the reading vi6q, giving in every
case exact references to their quotations of the passage, Dr.
Tregelles notices only seven. Of the twenty-nine witnesses
whom he thus ignores, at least twenty-six are as ancient as
Alcuin, whom he cites, though erroneously, in favor of the
reading "only-begotten God " ; and a great majority of them
belong to the third and fourth centuries. Even this is not
all. His exhibition of the testimony of the authorities
which he does cite as containing the reading vi6^ is far from
complete. See the note below.*
has copied this mistake in reference, though an examination would have shown that the treatise
ends on p. 778.
The only acknowledgment made by Dr. Tregelles of any indebtedness to my researches on
this passage is the following: " He points out rightly that I had incorrectly alleged Phabadius
for the reading uoi'd^tir/C (hoc (an error which originated, 1 believe, in revising in the pnx)f-
shect the name which had been intended for Prudeutius)" This statement has not mended the
matter. Prudentius has not only never quoted John i. 18 with the reading unigenitus Deus, but
has never used this expression even, in any part of his writings. As to Phabadius^ 1 not only
pointed out the fact that the same remark was true of him, but that he had expressly quoted the
passage with the reading uttigenitus Jilius ( Contra A rianosy c. 12) . Of this, Dr. Tregelles, in his
account of the evidence, takes no notice. Why should he not be as ready to adduce the testimony
of Phfcb.ndius on one side as the other?
* For the convenience of Dr. Tregelles, and those of his readers who may happen to sec this
article, I will here point out in order some of the principal errors and defects in his note on John
i. 18. A fuller discussion of various questions will be given hereafter.
Authorities cited for the reading uoiur^ hi if'(^ fieoq.
Lines 4, 5. "Orig. Int. iv. 92*1." To be omitted. Merely an instance of the use of the
expression " unigenitus Deus Salvator noster," without any reference to John i. 18.
Line 5. *^ Marcel, ap. Ens. igc" To be omitted for a similar reason. Eusebius simply says
of a letter of Marcellus, containing his creed : F^rpaoe TTtarEirii' f/f Tzaripa itieov Trai^TOKpd-
Topa, Kal £/f Tuv viov airov rov fiovoyevf/ Ofov, rdv KVfuov i/fiov 'It^ovv XpiaT6v, koI
eif TO rrvciaa to ayiov.
I
I
I
ON THE READING " ONLY- BEGOTTEN GOD ^47
Under such circumstances, no apology can be necessary
for offering a restatement of the evidence for the various
Lioq J, 6. " JEMt. c> Hcl. 67^. i /unHty. vlic ^ tu/wy, Beo^;" Thu ibou!d bv quoicd with
Ac cootcin. Toil ivayyc^tBroii fiiapp^Siiv avriv vlftv iiovoyry^ ilvai diddowniroc ii'
tff f^, Uriiv cnnff ic iCiftaKE rrb^irnrr ^ & fiova}'Fvi/^ ^'f^^, 4 uavayEV^^ tei^, A Civ fif ritu
irfiinii, ».T.^., «liii* mflliei it, 1 think, eridmt Ihnl the woid» J hovo)- $e6f «" « OHuainal
flo*t wlwh hu CRpI bio the text: and thut (hi: proper fivx for 1h« reCcrcficc i% amoDg (he
Mlharitic* (or fimtiyn-^ *'io^\ whenyfTV other pUc«K 41c cited, in which Eu&^ua hu eaiprcsbty
quofrd Lbe paujge with thii reading. Cf. p. rj9-
Liiw 6. "*w. c. Mel. mo. tieln' Si Kai /un'nyrve." Irre1enni. Eiuebius lioiply uyi
hen Ihai Chriu ii lepreienied by the Emiecliil " u God lui/ only-bcgoiren," iu( only-begodcn
Cod. " iiuiniuc^u be alone wu truly ihe Son of ibc Cod over all."
tiiJ. "Ha. 11140 KqV'etc. To be ami lied. Thepanage it not a quouiion of John i. i9,
Koniin'i^XUmnf^XMWu, p. 46s,i>Dle,aiidwi]lbetuay>lu»nitKl<m. Cf. p. 16] >q. The
intB of Hilvy'c vgumeni, luch u i( b, rots wholly dci the word eiU The '* bi Lia uquentibut
tJepc" which Dr. Trestles addf \^ altogether deceptive,
tigni^ (hat Hilary hat '* (ifren " quoted John in c8 with the
Ut that he bu mtxtr qmxed the puiaj^e with ihu revlini
(way |£V r>-rB. lib. vl. c. 39) an to demonUrate beyond qu
Lob iB, if. " Efltl. Sym-Ji A ncyra Hat a* (ai>«| ap
ll If qtiite proper to adduce thit unone the auihoritiei whici
'iMivpflu;] Twi' dfuit tdi/ h/yiiv /inftyet-^ ^iii' . . . p^'. The iraprudence of a conAdenI
tdiarK* DB rdcicDca of llui kind waa illuitniizd in ibe Appendii to Norton'i Sta/imint sf Rta-
■HH. pp. 4Mi 45I1 '■'X'- iBd will be shown below. Cf. p. i]4. el teqq.
LiiKij, "C>r. .^/m, V. p, 1. 786e." For 78*= read 768*.
Ihu. " FulgntiMt inlerdum." Dilt. Fulgeniiui hu never quoteil ihe pauage. Hii allu-
Linoaj.M- "/j(i/<majPeI. 6. iii.^jtap. Weill.)." D,l,. Isidore of Pelusium hu no-
tkere quoted or alluded to Jotui i. i3. The puiage rderred 10 by Weuiein. aa wat polmed oul
HI the Appendia to Norton'! StalimtHl rfRtatnu, p. 460, note, connini mcRdy the iiprmiBH
" oBly-hesoiwo God," — I, fiamyrvif yniv Heiif fniiii/i^oa^, ^qai. «.r,?.. Thit is the only
Lioa ai-aj. '■ Stiiptoiei Gnesi et Latini SBpiuime habenl Yeila )invayn^t: feif. •"••£"••■
Bt,. Sil.. Ariui. L~cmH<u (1. Fieudo-Luc.), nee non EHnomim. Tit. Baitr., GawltnUui.
Ft^ntm^Mtt PndtHtini, VigiUni, AttHinHi, etc.: quod ab hoc lofo ui videmr pididei." Here
•I it n be abierved: i. Tbaiii ia not prelendcd that any of these wrileri fKoIri the paoage in
qgcuionwiih Ihe rtadbl " only-begotieii Ged"; on (he other hand, ^m- of than. Grtf. Nia..
Ta. BtUr., Vifiliui. and Aliaim, do expreiily quote it with the resding " only-b^otten 5a«."
>. Two of diein, Tiltu of BoUra and Pndtntiiu, have never evin uttJ ikr fhrmi " only-
ubJ ii but met each, in their enani wriiingi; and it occun very rarely, pethnps only once, in
'^f^is<A Grtffory A^at/aixtM. 4. None of the wriiera named ipcak of it ai "applied to Jsui in
Scnpuirc," eaccpt Grfgory Sytstn; and hii askenion, ai I ihall ahow, ia very poor evidence
148 CRITICAL ESSAY'S
readings of the passage in question. In doing this, I may
be pardoned for saying, that so far as the testimony of the
Fathers is concerned, nothing whatever will be given at
second hand. When it is affirmed that a particular Father
has not quoted John i. iS, or has never used in his writings
even the expression lifm^a-in Ucii. or, on the other hand, that
he /uis used it a certain number of times, the statement
is founded on a personal examination of the whole of his
published works. It would be presumptuous to assert that
in this examination, extending over so wide a field, nothing
has escaped my notice ; I can only say that I have aimed
at accuracy, and have had no object but to ascertain the
truth. The new note of Dr. Tregelles has added nothing to
the evidence which was presented in the Appendix to Nor-
ton's Statemenl of Reasons, except one reference to Didymus
of Alexandria, confirming the two citations which 1 had
given from him in favor of the reading Piot;* and, on the
other side, the fact (already mentioned in Tischendorf's last
edition of the Greek Testament), that the Aethiopic version,
as edited by Mr. Piatt, supports the reading fi&i. The very
few other apparent additions are merely errors.
I may here advert to an extraordinary statement in the
note of Dr. Tregelles, which, if correct, would make this
whole investigation on my part an absurdity. He says :
Line Ji. For " 197 " read " 197." ^H
Liiwjj. I>rlt '• iii,l>." ThciEiinordncnn hcRlo Johni. te. ^H
Urn u- liKI siDong the refewncu In f/il., " jjat," unl for " 85=' " "^ " H^-" ^H
fiid. For-vid. 7Vr(. »dv. Pra..8"t=id" ri-r/.adv. Pnn.15" Dr. TrtgeUci iw^t «■
iiKtead 10 a place where he hu mtrely alluded 10 it in tucb i imv u not u deiennine llw
/tiJ. Foi"^Hamiu.,"whi>:b ii Dut of place, read "^Mdui. i. iiBe(diKi1e),»74. jjgd.
638> (dii.) ; cf. 69S<^, i-ji^, 6j4f, G]^. ed. Benedicl." Alhonuiui quota the patuge four timet,
thaw, iq C4ch of them, that he unqueitioaaNy read i.i|^.
Within the chninological period 10 mhich Di. Tregcilei hat cnnReed hiuicir, namely, itie fint
eight ceniuriei, 1 ihtU furlhec adduu in luppsn of the reading " ooly-bctonea Ssh," the Ictii-
iU be odded Ehai of ten othert of later due-
Le of Dldymut, Pt Tritfi
eke, Di Scksia fiat Alt
nole. Didymui wat tbe only
L
1
L
LIN- IKE READING '■ ONXV-BECOTI'EN GOD 249
" Mr. Abbot has entirely failed in his endeavour to show
that Patristic citations are wholly a matter of uncertainty "
(p. 781). There is not the slijihtest ground in my Note for
ascribing to me such a preposterous " endeavor." I did
endeavor to show that the evidence of some of Dr. Trcgellcss
" Patristic citations " was very uncertain ; I caiL-d attention
to the indisputable fact that several of his principal authori-
ties were notorious for the general looseness and inaccuracy
of their quotations; I pointed out the importance of care-
fully distinguishing express cilalions of a passage from mere
allusions or references to it ; and I proved that it was not
always safe to rely on the assertion of a Father that a
particular expression was found in scripture. But I can
assure Dr. Tregelles that had I endeavored " to show that
Patristic citations are wholly a matter of uncertainty," I
should not have taken pains to adduce eighty of them, from
thirty-six different writers, in opposition to the reading which
he defends as genuine. The evidence of the Fathers in
regard to various readings always needs to be carefully
weighed and sifted ; the references to it in all critical edi-
tions of the Greek Testament hitherto published are very
incomplete and often untrustworthy ; but it is frequently of
great importance.
We will now examine the evidence for the reading iiwoycvix
Cnif as compared with that for iinvoirviif I'icH. The testimony
of the Greek MSS. is first to be considered. It is here
important to observe that the words f'<K and i*"V( in the abbre-
viated form in which they are written in the most ancient
codices (ix. Bc), differ in but a single letter, so that one might
easily be substituted for the other through the inadvertence
of a transcriber.
The reading Hf^c is found in the MSS. k', B, C*. L, 33, only
five in number, but three of them of the highest antiquity,
and all of great value. », the Codex Stnaiticus, which has
the reading a prima manu, was probably written, according
to Tischendorf,* about the middle of the fourth century; B,
250 CRITICAL ESSAYS
the Vatican MS., is of nearly the same age; C, the Ephraem
MS., is about a century later ; L is of the eighth century,
but remarkable for its affinity with the Vatican and the
Ephraem ; and 33 is a cursive MS. of the eleventh century,
also very remarkable for its agreement with our oldest copies.
It is one of the three cursive MSS. which read 6f in i Tim.
iii. 16.
The reading vid^, on the other hand, is found in k**, A,
C***, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, a, a, also in i, 69,
and all the other cursive MSS. containing the passage (so
far as is known), amounting to four or five hundred in
number, but many of them imperfectly collated. «** denotes
the Codex Sinaiticus as corrected ; A is the Alexandrine
MS., of the fifth century ; C*** denotes the Ephraem MS.
as corrected in the ninth century; X and A are MSS. of
the latter part of the ninth century, but distinguished from
the others of that period by their more frequent agreement
with the most ancient documents ; this is particularly true
of X, the text of which is of great excellence. The other
uncial MSS. range in date from the eighth century to the
tenth ; i and 69 are cursive MSS., the first of the tenth,
the second of the fourteenth century, but of uncommon
value on account of the accordance of their text with that
of our oldest copies ; a remark which applies, in a some-
what inferior degree, to a considerable number of others,
especially 13, 22, 118, 124, 157, and 209.
The concurrence of three out of our four most ancient
MSS. in the reading ^tof is remarkable ; but some cir-
cumstances may lessen its apparent weight. The testimony
of K, which has the reading a prima maiiUy cannot be prop-
erly estimated till we know something respecting the date
of the correction^ which possesses an authority, of course,
equal to that of a MS. at the time it was made. The
alterations which « has undergone are by many different
" Johannisi. i8, a pr uovoyevfiq (absque ") Oeoi^ Eig (om. o cjj)-" I took the " a pr" to apply
to nil the variations from the received text, not merely the first and last. Dr. Tregelles before mc
had fallen into the same error. See Postscripts to his Introd. to the T<xt. Crii. qfthe N. 7".,
ad cd., p. 780 (dated Nov. x, i860). The Sinaitic MS. was f\T^\./nthlished in i86a.
ON THE READING " ONLY- BEGOTTEN GOD" Jfl
hands, but Tregelles remarks {p. 784) that " it will appar-
ently be found that one at least of these has carefully cor-
rected the errors of the original scribe ; indeed it seems not
improbable that such a corrector may have been the person
whose business it was to revise what had bi;eu wriiten by a
mere mechanical copyist. For a full apprehension of the
value, etc., of the corrections, we must wait the appearance
of Tischendorf's edition." Should it appear that the origi-
nal iiop8uTii(. or a very early corrector, altered the reading
of K from Se6t to vifif, the importance of its testimony to the
former would be greatly diminished, or even nullified ; on
the other hand, if the change was made by a /ate corrector,
the alteration would be of little consequence. That the
original transcriber was careless or sleepy when he copied
John i. 18 is evident from the fact that he has omitted the
words o '> before ek nv k6>-ov. Another circumstance may
be regarded as weakening in some measure the authority of
k", B, C*, L, in this passage. They all agree in reading /•oi'o-
)(!■.;( ttcric instead of « iim'i<yivf,i I'ldij. It seems hardly possible
that this omission of the article can be correct; but, if this
be an error, it throws some suspicion on the reading which
accompanies it.
The balance of evidence in the case of the MSS. will be
estimated differently by different critics according to the
school to which they belong. Tregelles would attribute
greater weight than Tischendorf to the preponderance of
the few most ancient MSS. in favor of dur. while Mr. Scrivener
would lay greater stress than either on the testimony of the
later uncials and cursives. It may be sufficient to say here
that the united testimony of the MSS. of the ninth century
and later, though numbered by hundreds, cannot disprove
the genuineness of a reading which is supported by a great
preponderance of the more ancient evidence ; and, on the
other hand, that the coincidence of the MSS. »<, B. C. L, in a
reading, though entitled to grave consideration, is far from
being decisive. The testimony of se\'era! of the ancient
versions and Fathers goes further back than that of our oldest
MSS. ; and that of the versions, in particular, is of great
252 CRITICAL ESSAYS
importance in cases like the present, where, from the simi-
larity of the questionable words in the Greek, a transcriber
might easily mistake one for the other.
We will proceed, then, to examine the evidence of the
ancient versions. The following support ^tk\ (i) the Peshito
Syriac, which has been assigned to the second century,
but the text of which is regarded by Dr. Tregelles and
others as having been greatly corrupted and modernized,
especially in the Gospels, by a later revision ; * (2) the
Harclean or Philoxenian Syriac (a.d. 616) in the margin;
(3) the Coptic or Memphitic (third or fourth century) ; and
(4) the Aethiopic (fourth or fifth century) in the Roman
edition.
The following support v\k\ (i) the Old Latin or Italic, of
the second century ; (2) the Vulgate, of the fourth ; (3) the
Curetonian Syriac, probably of the second century ; f (4) the
Harclean or Philoxenian Syriac (a.d. 616) in the text ; (5)
the Jerusalem Syriac, of uncertain date, but representing a
very ancient text ; (6) the Aethiopic (fourth or fifth century),
as edited in 1 826 by Mr. Piatt ; and (7) the Armenian, of the
fifth century.
It will be perceived that the weight of authority, so far as
the ancient versions are concerned, greatly preponderates in
favor of the reading tw;. The evidence of the Old Latin and
the Curetonian Syriac is particularly important.
The testimony of the ancient Fathers is next to be attended
to. We will examine the evidence: (i) of those who favor
f^((k ; (2) of those who favor v't6<: ; and (3) of a few who have
quoted the passage with Iwt/i readings, and may be regarded
as doubtful. I add, for convenience, the time at which they
flourished as assiq-ned bv Cave.
I. The following favor the reading Oi:6c: —
I. Clement of Alexandria, a.d. 194, who has once quoted
the passage with this reading {Stro?nat. lib. v. c. 12, p. 695,
♦Sec his In trod, to Textual Criticism, pp. 265, 266: comp. p. 757.
tOf this version Dr. Treqclles obscrvc<; that " its readings are in far greater accordance with
the oldest authorities of various V\x\<U than i-? the cn^- in the previously known Peshito." Ibid.
p. 267. It has been printed from a MS. of the fifth ccntur>'.
ON THE READING " ONLY- BEGOTTEN GOD" 253
ed. Potter). This evidence is, however, somewhat weakened
by the fact, that in another place, in alluding to the text, he
has the words 6 fwvoyevr/^ vide dedg, " the only-begotten Son, who
is God." * He does not comment on the passage, in either
case, in such a way as to show how he read it ; and as
Dr. Tregelles has remarked (p. 333), " he often gives his own
phrases instead of those of any writer whom he may cite."
Indeed, he is one of the most remarkable among the Fathers
for the looseness of his quotations from scripture.
2. The Excerpta Theodotiy or Doctrina Oricntalis. This
is a compilation of uncertain authorship, but supposed by
many to have been made by Clement of Alexandria, with
whose works it is generally printed. " Theodotus " is several
times cited in it, but more frequently "the followers of
Valentinus." The quotation of John i. 18 occurs in an
account of the manner in which the Valentinians understood
and explained the first chapter of John. It is a very impor-
tant testimony to the reading <9e(5f, both on account of its high
antiquity, and because it is express : hvriKpv^ Oebv ahrbv 67)7^1 7.tyuv,
3. Epiphanius, Bp. of Constantia or Salamis in Cyprus,
A.D. 368, has quoted the passage three times with the reading
<^foc. (Haer. Ixv. c. 5, biSy and Ixx. c. 7, Opp. i. 612*" and
8i8*, ed. Petav.) In the remark, however, which follows the
quotation in the first passage, ^^k and vlo^ are interchanged :
Koi o^Tcrf, '0 fiovoyevye 6e6g • 6 fiev yap /idyog egtIv tK Trarpde; yevvrfOeit;, 6 TTUTr/f) (5f
ovK iyewffiri dia rovro /lovoyevr/g vidg. He alsO Spcaks of Jolin aS
"calling Christ only-begotten God " : Uovoyn'O Otbv ai-dv <;>(iGKuv . . .
Uepi Trarpbq ytypanrcu, a?j/6Lvov deov- rrEpi v'lov 6k ^ bri fiovoycvijg tkog {AflCOJ'iXt.
c. 3, Opp. ii. 8"^). A little before, however, in a qnotatioji
of John i. 1 8, 6 fiovoyevij^ is given without either Oe6q or viog. But
here the context renders it probable that o^k has been omitted
after fiovaytvije by the mistake of a transcriber, though the
*«ttM T&re emyTTCVoetg rbv ko^.ttov mi: rrarpbc, bv 6 poynyerr/t; vlbq fkbq uovoq li-
Ti'J^aro. — Quis dives salvetur^ c. 37, p. 956.
\ Excerpta Theodot. c. 6, a/. Clem. Alex. Opp. p. 968, ed. Potter; also in Fabric ii Bibl.
Graec. v. T36, and in Bunsen's Analecta Ante-Nicaena, i. 211.
254 CRITICAL ESSAYS
text, both in what precedes and follows, appears to be
corrupt.*
4. Didymus of Alexandria, a.d. 370, has quoted the passage
twice with the reading ^toc. {De Trinit, lib. i. c. 26, and lib.
ii. c. 5, pp. 76, 140, ed. Mingarel., or in Migne's Patrol.
GraccUy xxxix. 393', 495'.) He also says, © v'lhq «/ic/.r/ra/ /iow;«7)f
<^fOf /o}r>f, KOL f}f Kxpio^ 'Ir/aovq Xpifrrdc, {Ibid, lib. i. C. IS, p. 27, Or
col. 313', ed. Migne.) But here it may be doubted whether a
comma should be placed after //ovo>ei^f, or after ^f<k-, or after
neither.!
The four writers whose testimony has now been adduced
are all who have expressly quoted John i. i8 with the reading
fiovoyevf/i ^eof alone, and are all who can be cited in its support
with much confidence. There are four others who have
quoted the passage with do/A readings ; namely, Irenaeus,
Origen, Basil the Great, and Cyril of Alexandria. The first
of these favors vl6^; the last, perhaps, (^e^k; while the two
remaining are altogether doubtful. Their evidence will be
considered hereafter.
There are, however, some allusions and references to the
passage which may be supposed to favor the reading ^fof, but
in regard to which there is room for a difference of opinion.
A statement of the facts will enable the reader to form his
own judgment.
I. The Second (semi-Arian) Synod of Ancyra, a.d. 358,
viay have read Ot:dc^ in John i. 18, but the evidence is not
decisive. After quoting Prov. viii. 22, etc., Col. i. 15, etc.,
and the first verses of the Proem to the Gospel of John,
without any allusion, however, to John i. 18, the Fathers of
this Synod state their conclusion as follows : ** So that we
have testimony * from the mouth of two or three witnesses '
♦After having quoted and remarked upon John xvii. 3, Epiphanius says: 'I;/(Tr)ffv X/JfOTOV
r/va ; {i/.i^)ivhv Otov. E'l i^i titui- Xprnrnv '\7/a'n>\ /.V '/.t]ti rztfu airov u 'loxiriz/f. '0
fjovfr^evf/r, o ijv nr rnv Ko'/rro)' rar —urpi'ir. arrnr f^r/yf/nnrn, E/f f^eoc roiiw 6
7T(irr/f), A". 7. /.. Ancorat. c. a,p. 7C Here ^/ rV must be wrong unless the whole conclusion
of the sentence has been lost. Perhaps we should substitute omW (comp. Basil, de Sfir. Sanci.
c. 8, p. 14C) or o/fV/7f , thou;jh /r^f may seem at first an easier emendation.
t [Later Dr. AW)Ot added in pencil] Better after neither; cf. /ioivyt r//f ^fof /^)'0f, Kb. L
c. 26, p. 75 (392 Migne), quoted by Mr. Drummond. [Cf. p. 373 below.]
i
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD "
in proof that the substance of the Son is like that of the
Father ; for one [Solomon] calls the wisdom of the [all-]
Wise his Son ; another [John] calls the Logos of God only-
begotten God ; another [Paul] calls the Son cf God his
Image." * We have no reason to suppose, a priori, that the
reference to John is verbally accurate any more than that to
Proverbs, where we find neither the word n'lir, nor the expres-
sion ij oofFra roil ao^soip. It is HOt uncommon with the Fathers to
give, as the language of scripture, expressions formed from
several passages combined, or which they regard as fully
authorized by scripture, though not occurring there in so
many words. The Logos being called "God" in John i. i,
and the Son being called " the only-begotten " in John i. l8,
nothing was more natural than that they should unite the
two passages, and speak of John as calling the Logos "the
only-begotten God." This would be done the more readily
by many of the Fathers, as they regarded the terms " Son "
and "only-begotten " as necessarily implying a participation
of the Divine nature, and as in themselves justifying the
appellation 8cii, Thus the Epistle of this Synod says, a little
after the passage just cited, '''k ftiir /li^: in"" liic *«*. "C 4i*/H^or.
AoSi vHx Mi«;,^ov. (Cap. 9, p. 855*. afi. Epiph^ So Eusebius
says that Christ is ™i- cot pnujn^r v\ii^, «■" ^^^ rotro dei^ {Dem.
Evatig. lib. V. c- 4, p. 227"), and an indefinite number of pas-
sages might be quoted to the same purpose.
2. In one place Gregory of Nyssa (a.d. 370) says: Eipvai
irapa T^ Ypap^ Tipi roil (v apX9 tiiTat ?jijoii. in 6 /lomycyi/f tfeift. ^puriroiBif
ird(r« KTiecuc. {Dc Pttf. Christ. Forma. 0pp. Hi. 291'.) Some
may regard this as a clear proof that Gregory read flf^c in
John i. iS. One, however, who has become accustomed to
the style in which scripture is quoted and referred to in the
writings of the Fathers, will be more likely to regard it as
affording but a slight presumption of the fact in question ; a
presumption altogether outweighed by the consideration that
•'Of i;r(iii Tr)v (iri orAfiaTot 6i<u Ij rpiin/ fia/rripui' (f- /mpTvpiav, Petav.] tic Arr6-
iii^iv T^c KOr' oivlav vpiif wnrlpa rnl twi a/iniArtiTa^, '0 iiiv yap T-ni nnoni T^v
«^l. —AftiJ Efifllaii. Matr. luii!. c a, 0pp. i. 9y,U: or CUKili*. cd. Coleii. iS. 87*^-
256 CRITICAL ESSAYS
he has nowhere expressly quoted the passage, though the
deity of Christ is so prominent a subject in his writings. If
he had actually read <^*<>c in John i. 18, it would have been a
testimony too remarkable to be overlooked. It is not easy
to perceive why he should not have quoted this passage as
often as John i. i. But we have not far to seek for an illus-
tration of the imprudence of a confident reliance on such
references to scripture as the one before us. Turning back
a few leaves in this same treatise of Gregory Nyssen we find
the assertion that, among the names which the Apostle Paul
has given to Christ, — ** He has called him ... a propitiation
for souls ^ . . . and first-born of the new creation, . . . and only-
begotten Son, crowned with glory and honor," etc.* In
another place he expressly quotes the words "whom God
hath set forth as a propitiationyi?r^«rj^7//y" as the language
of the apostle.f But it would be idle to suppose that he had
Tuv y^wxi^v yfiiju in his MSS. in Rom. iii. 25, or that his Greek
copies contained the expression " new creation " in Col. i. 16 ;
still more that his copy of the Epistle to the Hebrews con-
tained the words ''only-begotten Son," a phrase occurring
only in the writings of John. The looseness and inaccuracy
of such references to scripture in the writings of the Fathers
might be much more fully illustrated.
Though Gregory of Nyssa has nowhere quoted John i. 18,
he has repeatedly alluded to it, using the words 0 ^v hv 7o/<;
Ko^rro/r roi- nar/>m; ctgJit timcs in councction with thc expression
i) uinuytvi,ci)vnc, ttvicc in connection with the phrase o ^ovo-,(:vii^v\6^^
and once with the phrase <' ^'«' ii'ioroig Ht6c. For examples and
references see below.J The expression 6 uovoyevyg $€6g is a
*A»'7oi' tKn'/rnF . . . i?aG7f^()iov t/m.'j^">''» • • • '^'^^ '^/C Kaivf/g KTiaeoc TrptjrdTOKOv.
. . . S(u rinf unvayfvfj^ ^^'J^'J '^'^i ~^!'^} iareOiivutuvov^ k.t.?.. — De Ferf. Christ.
Forma, < >pp. iii. 276, 277.
t^Or \it //Torro/or] oT/rrrv ■ utl bv TTfmWern 6 6eog i/aarypiov tuv ^i';(;<jr
//uo)V. — Z^** ^'^'f ''ifosis. Opp. i. 225J.
J '0 u<tv(i]t]i^c th ('n\ it Iw iv To'ic Ko/rrn/r rob rroTpnc, nvTuc; rariv r/ ^tiia tov
i li'inrdv. — /V ^VAr ^f(ysls. Opp. i. iQa'*. Sec also /« Catttz'c. //i>w/. xiii. Opp. i. 663». — Centra
Eunottt. Orat. ii., tt-r, iii., vi., x. Opp. ii. 432b, 4470^ M^^, 5o6<^« 595 [^s]*. 681*. Lat. unigeni-
tus Dei fi lilts. (Georg. Trapezuntius.)
'0 fiovo}n-r,c VI 6^, 6 uv eu rolg ko/.ttoi^ rov Trarpog, 6 kv apxi tov, k.t. X. —
ON THE READING " ONLY- BEGOTTEN GOD " 257
favorite designation of Christ in the writings of this Father.
I have noted one hundred and twenty-five examples of its
occurrence in his treatise against Eunomius alone. But this
expression, as we shall see, is also a favorite one with other
Fathers who unquestionably read "only-begotten Son'' in
John i. 18.
3. We may here take notice of the allusions to John i.
18 in the writings of a Latin Father, Fulgent ius, who flour-
ished A.D. 507. They are so instructive as to deserve to
be quoted in full. Taken together, they show clearly how
little can be inferred concerning the reading of a passage
from such allusions, and may serve to guard us against
hasty conclusions from those of Gregory of Nyssa. See
the note below.* Neither Fulgentius, nor any other . Latin
Father, has ever quoted John i. i8 with the reading unigeni-
tus Deus. This is only what might be expected, as both
the Old Latin version and the Vulgate read Filius. But if
Fulgentius had found the reading Dcus in his copies, the
nature of his writings is such that he could not have failed
to quote it frequently in proof of the deity of Christ.
n. The following Greek Fathers, with one Pagan writer,
support the reading «<<Jf. They expressly quote the passage
with this reading, unless the contrary is stated.
I. Irenaeus, Bp. of Lyons in Gaul, but educated in Asia
£/u/. md Flavian. Opp. iii. 648>. See also Contra Eunom. Orat. ii. Opp. ii. 466c. Sec also
Or*t. z. 683*.
'0 tv v'^iaroi^ ^e<Jf, bv ev roic kSX^toic tov TrarpS^, k.t.7.. — In Cantic. Horn.
XT. Opp. i. 697*.
* Fulgendof has alluded to John i. 18 six times.
I. In connection with the phrase unigenitus Deus, " Ut ille unigenitus Deus, qui est in sinu
P^ttris, non solum in muliere, sed etiam ex muliere fieret homo." — Epist. xvii. c. 3, in Migiic's
P^irpl. Ixv. 454C(1. " De Deo unigenito, qui est in sinu Patris, ut dixi, omnia hxc personaliter
"cdpe," — />/ Fide, c. »o, col. 681b, ed. Nfigne.
a. With nnifenitn* Filius. ** Quis enim natus est Deus verus ex Deo vcro, nisi unigenitus
Filius, qui est in sinu Patris? " — Ad Trasim. lib. iii. c. 4, col. 272b. •• Si vero unigenitus Filius,
qm est in sinu Patris, post aetemam nativitatem," etc. {Greg. Nyss. cont. Eunom. lib. x. vol. ii.
^ 844. Migne is cited by Mr. Drummond as confirmins! the reading r/'of.) — Epist. xvii. c. 15,
»1«7 (Gall. 235), Opp. ii. 682«, col. 459*". " Dei erco Fil-us unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris, ut
•^nem hominis animamque mundaret," etc. — De Fide, c. 17, col. 670c.
3* With unigeniins alone. "Quia unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris, secundum quod cam est,
P*«usest gnti«,** etc. — De Incarnat. c. 18, col. sSs*".
The €xfrtuioH " tuugenitus Deus " occurs in the writings of Fulgentius about ninety times.
258 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Minor, fl. a.d. 178. According to the very early Latin
version in which his work against Heresies has come down
to us, he has quoted the passage once with the reading Fil-
ins ; once with Filiiis Dei ; and once with Deus, As Filius
Dei is a merely trivial variation of Filius, and as the words
which follow his quotation in two passages confirm the latter
reading, his testimony may be fairly regarded as favoring
' ' Ik
2. Hippolytus, Bp. of Portus Romanus, a.d. 220. A^ei
yap'lijdvvtii,- Oeov oiiU^g eCtpoKev TnoTrorr^ fioi'oyn>r/c v'tdg, u on* cif ruv koAitov tov
TTar/jof. rxiroc thtniionro, (Cout. Noct. C. $, in Routh's SctipL
Ecclcs. Opusc, i. 58, ed. alt., or Migne's Patrol. Gr. x.
812'.)
3. The Third Synod at Antioch (a.d. 269), in their Epistle
to Paul of Samosata. {Concilia, ed. Coleti, i. 869** ; also
in Routh's Rcliq. Sacr. ii. 473, or iii. 297, ed. alt.)
4. Archelaus, or rather the Acta Disp. Arclulai cum
Manete (about a.d. 300.^), as preserv^ed in a Latin version.
(Cap. 32, in Routh's Reliq. Sacr. iv. 213, or v. 121, ed. alt. ;
also in Migne's Patrol. Gr. x. I479^)
5. Alexander, Bp. of Alexandria, a.d. 313. (Epist. ad
Alex. Constant. § 4, ap. Theodore ti Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 4
(al. 3), or in Migne's Patrol. Gr. xviii. 553*.)
6. Eusebius, Bp. of Caisarea, a.d. 315, quotes the passage
with the reading "V not less than six times. In one case,
indeed, which has already been briefly noticed, the words
}/ iioi'o}fi'/)(: (htn; arc added a/ter 6 /y«iy»; n7>; n'of, and on this ground
Dr. Tregelles claims his authority in support of the reading
(ff'k'. This passage alone, however, when carefully examined
with the context, seems enough to disprove this claim ; and
when it is taken in connection with at least five other
unequivocal quotations in which Eusebius reads wof, there
♦The pa-isagcs arc as follows; (i) " Deum enim, inqiiit, nemo vidit unquam, nisi unigenitus
Filius Dei. qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Patrem enim invisibilcm exsistentem ille qui in
sinii ejus e-it Filius omnibus enarrat." — Cont. Hacr. lib. iii. c. ii, § 6, p. 189, ed. Mass.
(2> "Quemadmodum in Kvangelioscriptum est: Deum nemo vidit unquam, nisi»»/]f5r«i/V«j/V7/«<x,
qui est in sinu Pntris. i])<c enarravit. F.narrat ergo ab initio Filius Patris," etc. — Ibid. lib. iv.
r. 20. § fi. p. 7^s. (^^ " Qucmadmodum et Dominus dixit : Unigenitus Dfus, qui est in sinu Patris,
ipse enarravit."— n>id, lib. iv. c. 20, § 11, p. 256.
ON THU KHAl'lN'lJ " UNLV-llhUiriKN" GOD 159
ri-'allv appears to bu no room for doubt. The facts arc given
below. ■
7. Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, a.u. 330. {De F.iigaslrimy-
!ho, c. 18, in Galland. Uibl. Patr. iv. 563*, or Migne's /"ij/ro/.
Gr. xviii. 652'.)
8. Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, a.d. 326, has expressly
i[uoted John i. 18 with the reading ■'■«( four times, and
referred to it in such a way in three other places as to show
in each of them that he had this reading.f
•EiwUai qwio Jobn i. iB wUh ihc Rudiiig uUf, Di Bcdi: Tknl.
p. Ki*. la Ihe icmnrki whkh lollow ihe lut quoaiun, M lepdli
loRftjnIftrotiEConlinnHionof thtt mtding. A lilUc further on Cp-ttO'J nvm
lidu (JTen ID Chriri by ihe ApniJe John, in tktir trJtr, in Hich ■ oniui
Ihu be rod m^ ^ John i. iBk He olU upoa ut ed ab««rve bow tbc Evodcc
iim;iiii70i }^yov Uohn L i), laJ fcoi' riv am-lhi avincciv («i. i), «
{vcr. 7), oii iiavafcvi ^uivu (*«- >4)>iini uiuv 0cdv iitaXayiloat l*u-
ovofid^K. dX^ nui QtTilv ijHrriv iarapri Tor aur^pa oii >ii}av rni
oW.n tWc, Koi fiovnytv^, sal ^j[. i.r. X., qomiog John iii. i6, oW.
bdixB Ihit ciuiien from ibe ibird clupler. ui wbkh Mr Brmnfrlitl, la bin m
Jahn j. iB: ind
l«™nioo f, uovoyiviit^
hnngBiu.
It Ihc
, in Moni^ucfw't Cati- Ntva, i. 440*. See also
a Ii. vi. 1 , when wi find u iinvayni/t l>id(, a uv
duud u ■ fonnal quouiioo (MoalT. Cull. .Vmia, ii
u TeadinE aAccIinE Ihc word jicj^ It ^vcn by Nofb
cil of Euichiui Dt BccUi. Tictl. puUithed by
iof by ImmMcriitri, Ddll 10 Ihe |iiiuihI. Eum
0. t J. P-B'
I. Cr.
Let UI nnv cumine Ibe puiagc on Hhich Di. Trcgcllu idiu. Dr Btclrt. Thtot. lib. i. c. 9,
p. frjA. HcK the quouiion ii inmiduccd by Ihe UKnioo ihm ihc F.vancdiil " tjifrtuly Icachai
thil Chtiil i> the oiilv.bcgonen Sn in ihe IhllowinI irordi," and i> lucceeded bx * qiHNMion d(
coafiriKi l»ii." Toi ilnyyehoTuii 6iaiipiiSiiv airav iJui' /urmiyrv^ ilvai itiitiiatjir
ro( ii' iir lifii, Srflv oidiic iiipaa irilirorj ■ & fiomyrrit fi^, ft iiovoyivl/t 6r6f, 0 -ji'
(J( rSf »Wirov roi B-ai-pof, infimr fiff)-^ro. Under ihcK ciKumiuncei, « impaiiisl
critic will prnlnbl)' Iluak Ihu do cIiuk ever mm dearly betrayed itjelf *• a nui^nal gloH Ihan
Ihe wonb 1^ ^ovo)'f 1';^ 0f df in Ihe prcieni Inttanee. Il li perhaps hardly worth while la menriDO
■hit Iheyaieio Rganjedby Ihe oiiiinal edilor, Bp.Konlagu.whouyioI'lhcni in hii BDIe; "Sua
■unt bee eTiDielutz, lei] nee credo Eiuebii. niii fenan, i^m,, pnvnyrv^ flrdf ,"
The only panace ihii I have (bund in EuKbiut which might lecni at lint view 10 counlenince
the leadini fioBnytriK Oror i» in hii oraiise Dr Etclii. THrel. lib, iii, c. S, pp. 174, 171- Aflcr
having quoted Eph. iv. t, 6. he layi of ihe Father : "He alone maybe called ( tiuiuarlCui il)
the One God, and Father of our Lord Jeiui Chtiu; but the Son [nay be called] onlybclnHen
God. .ho <• in the hewn of the Father (i Al tJflf ,iDim"t>r flciff, i iiT r\( ruv Ki>wm< rnf'
■mr/xir); hut the Paiacleie Spirit can be called neither Ond nor Son." Heie it will benbcrved
thai Euaelnuf doea not aaaen Ihal the Son 11 called " anly-betotlcD God" in Kripuin. but only
that it il proper to live him thai name. Thii poaaage, theRfore. dna not weaken Ihe foice of 1ii>
eipiBU qiioialioni of John i. i3 wiih the leadinc nA', IConipin p iji no'e.]
tTbe Jirn-I fin<hr/»*i of Alhanoiiui are; Dr Drcrrl. N'ic. SynrJ. c, ij,' 11,^1 Xi rai
26o CRITICAL ESSAYS
9. P^^/^Z-Athanasius (4th century?). {Contra Sabellian,
c. 2, Opp. ii. 38** ; Migne, xxvii. \q&)
10. Cyril of Jerusalem, a.d. 350, probably. He has no-
where expressly quoted the passage, but alludes to it as
follows : WiOTtvoiuv Toiwu eif kva Oebv naripa ... 61/ avdpuTruv ftiv oWeif
ttjpoKev, 6 fioi'oyei'f/^ de {iwoq e^r/yi^aTO, {Cat. vii. C. II, Opp. p. II /»
cd. Tout.) Here the omission of vldg after fwvoyev^g affords
no ground for supposing that it was absent from his Greek
copies in John i. i8, because its omission does not affect the
sense. But if he had read ^fof in this passage, it is improbable
that he would have neglected so important a word. To this
it may be added that in his Eleventh Catecliesis it is his
special object to prove that the sonship of Christ implies his
divinity^ or, as he expresses it, that ^foq Oebv eyiwtfaev. Such
being the case, had he read fioi'oyevt/^eedi: in John i. i8, he could
hardly have failed to quote the passage ; none would seem so
likely to have suggested itself. But he has not referred to it.
11. The Emperor Julian, a.d. 362, has quoted the passage
t7uice with the reading wof. {Ap. Cyril Alex, lib. x. cont,
Julian. Opp. vi. ii. 333.)
12. Titus of Bostra, a.d. 362. {Cant, ManichaeoSy lib. iii.
c. 6, in Galland. Bibl. Pair. v. 332^ or Migne's Patrol. Gr.
xviii. I224^) He has also once quoted the passage with the
reading viit^ Otor,*
13. Gregory of Nazianzus, a.d. 370. "E-eifit/ vl6^ /nm^^evr/^,
o itoi'o)n'}/c I'Jof, (/ uw tic rov k6'/.~ov rot' t ar/>of, tKFlrog e^T/^r/aaTo. (Orat,
xxix. al. XXXV. c. 17, p. 535**, ed. Bened.) Euthymius quotes
Kvpmv flffjyt'/A^oini'nr /iyn- M> lun'o^FvifQ v\oc, o u)V tif Tov Ko/rrnv. k.7.7. Ei
ro'ivv I' inc. oh KTiriun, h.r.'/. (<>PP- >• 210**. eil. Ifened., Par. 1698.) /^/*/. c. at, p. aaj**.
Orat. ii. cont. A nan. c. 62, p. 530'1. Orat. iv. cont. Arian. c. 26, p. 638* : Wu/jv At To
h' (I'rrt.) 7t'f) 'l(jni'nj e'if)T;ufvi>v. '() //oj-o;. nv/r I'ioi;, o wt' ni; ruv ku/.ttov, k.t.'/. dFiKrvtrt
ritv viuv iin th'ai. 'Or ja/) '/f^fi o 'laxiivf/c vl6i\ rovrov X*'^l^ *' >^<^'^^^ ^jn'/'/ri
//;(.»!•. 'Ira ri a-Darfnonr ri/v \H(ui aor . . . fk ftfaov rov koPtoi' gov (Psalm Ixxiii.
.t1. Ixxiv. 11). iVi'Kovv t'l ij \t)p iv 7(.) Ko'/~(j\, knt it v'i^h; iv Ko/n-fc). k.t./. The re/er-
rnces to the reading vi<»\ which in this case are as explicit as quotations, are found in Orat. iv.
I out. Arian. c. 16, p. ^^B'^'*; ihid. c. 20, p. 6u'l". and c. 23, pp. 634*', 635".
* Ibid. c. II, ap. (ialland. lUhl. Patr. v. 3^8<", or Migne, xviii. 1240*. Here {)ruc may have
Vkch ad<lcd by Titus from John i. i, to indicate, as he s.-\ys in the foHowing sentence, that the
r/f»r was iv'/u- j vifcmc iiiiottn; ri.) )f)n'V}ii\it7(. Compare the insertion in the next sentence to
this, where he quotes Matt. iii. 17 (or xvii. 5) thus: Orror tariv 6 I'/'of /iov 0 /loi'oyev^^
hiit tiyir://Tu(,\ ii> u. i)Lj ti^oK/jan.
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOITEN GOD " 26 1
this passage from Gregory with the same reading. {PanopL
Pars i. tit. xi.)
14. /^j^'tt^fo-Basilius (4th century ?), that is, the author of a
Homily published with the works of Basil. (Hom. in Psalm.
xxviii. c. 3, in Basilii Magni 0pp. i. 359', Migne, xxx. ^^*'y ed.
Bened.)
15. Rufinus Syrus or Palaestinensis, about a.d. 390, as
preser\'ed in a very early Latin translation. (De Fide, lib. i.
c. 16, in Sirmondi Opera Varia, i. i66', ed. Venet. 1728.)
16. Chrysostom, a.d. 398, not less than eight times. In
several of these instances he so comments on the word vtof as
to show beyond question that he had this reading.*
17. Theodore of Mopsuestia, a.d. 407, in his comment on
John i. 29. EJp^yxwf tvravda 6 (ia^TTiarf/g, on ovT6q kartv 6 alpov tt/v dfiapriav
Tw Kdofxov, ovK elTrev *0 /lovoyev^c vidf, oM^ '0 o)v kv roiq K6?.7Toiq rov 'KaT()6<;, out
^iverai ev roZf dvurkpu eipt^Kuq (i.e., in John i, i8). Ap. Maii
Nov. Pair. Bibl. tom. vii. P. i. p. 397, or in Migne's Patrol.
Gr. \xv\. 733^
18. Nonnus, of Panopolis in Egypt, a.d. 410, probably.
In his poetical Paraphrase of the Gospel of John he has no
trace of the reading ^c<5c, which he would hardly have failed
to express, had he found it in the original. He uses //owym/c
alone, which implies wA.
19. Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrrhus, near Antioch, a.d. 423,
at least four times. (Comm. in Psalm, cix. i ; Dial. i. ;
Haer. Fab. lib. v. cc. I, 2. Opp. i. 1392, and iv. 20, 379, 383,
ed Schulz.)
20. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, a.d. 434. {Orat.
XV. c. 2 ; Analcct. p. 440, ed. Riccard., or in Migne's Patrol.
Gr. Ixv. 80 1*.)
21. PseudO'CyrW (5th century.^). I refer under this name
* De Incamp. Dei Natura, Horn. iv. c. 3, bis ; ibid. c. 4; ibid. Hom. v. c. i; Ad eos qui
icandulizaii runi, c. 3; In It. cap. vi. § i ; In illudt Filius ex se nihil, etc., c. 6; In Joan. Hom.
rr. al. xiv. cc. i (text), 3. Opp. i. 47s*®, 476*>, 48x»: 111.470^: vi. 64*, 264*1 ; viii. 84^, 86c, cf.
87be, ed. Montf. Of these passages, those first referred to will be found, on examination, to
exclude ^Avt possibility of the supposition that Chrysostom re.nlly quoted the passaj^e with the read-
ing %<^, and that transcribers have substituted v\6c. I may also remark that neither Savile nor
MoatfuKOn has noted in his MSS.,, in any of these instances, any various reading affecting
363 CKITIJAL ESSAYS
to a work, De satictA et vivified Trinitatey ascribed to Cyril
of Alexandria, and published as his by Cardinal Mai. Dr.
Tregelles, however, to whose judgment I have deferred,
regards it as the production of a later writer than Cyril.*
In this work (cap. 6) John i. i8 is quoted with the reading
22. Andreas, Bp. of Crete, a.d. 635 } {Orat. in Transfig,
Opp. p. 44', ed. Combefis ; Migne, xcvii. 940^)
23. PscudO'QcS^^zx'wx^ (7th century }). (Qnacst, et Respons.
Dial. i. Resp. 4, ap, Galland. Bibl. Patr, vi. 8**.) The work
here cited has been attributed, but it would seem erroneously,
to Caesarius, the brother of Gregory Nazianzen. It was
accredited as his in the time of Photius, who has described
it. Migne, xxxviii. 864.
24. Joannes Damascenus, a.d. 730, three times. {De
Fide Orthod. lib. i. c. i ; Adv, Nestorianos^ c. 32, bisy and 42.
Opp. i. 123% 562*, 567^ ed. Le Quien.)
25. Theodore Studites, a.d. 813, tivicc, (Antirrhet. iii. 14,
and Epist, ii. 36. Epist.y etc., pp. io8^ 349*, as edited
by Sirmond in his Opera Variay tom. v. ; Migne, xcix. 396®,
I2l6^)
26. Andreas the Presbyter (9th or loth century ?), in his
Catena on i John iv. 11-17. (Cramer's CatcnaCy viii. 134.)
27. The Catena on John i. 18, published by Cramer.
(Cramer's Catenae y ii. 189.)
28. Theophylact, a.d. 1070. (Comm. in loc. Opp. i. 519%
ed. Vcnet. ; Migne, cxxiii. 1 164.)
29. Euthymius Zigabenus or Zygadenus, a.d. mo, thrice.
(Comm. in loc. iii. 35, 39, cd. Matth. ; Migne, cxxix. 1125^
1 1 28''; and Panop/. P. ii. tit. xxiii. {Adv. Bogomilos) c. 6,
p. 10, ed. Giescler ; Migne, cxxx. 1296^)
It is hardly worth while to go lower than this, but two or
three more writers may be added for completeness.
^o. Elias Cretensis, a.d. ^%^ according to Cave, 11 20
* Account of the Printed Text of the Greek Nexv Test., p. 23a, note t-
tin ^Taii Script. Vet. A'c. Coll. tom. viii. P. ii. p. 31, and in his Nov. Patr. Bibl. ii. 5;
also in Mi^^ne's Patrol. Gr. Ixxv. iis^^^
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD " 263
according to Oudin. (Comm. in Greg. Naz. Orat. i., in the
App. to Greg. Naz. 0pp. ii. 2io% ed. of 1630.)
31. Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, a.d. 1157. (/// Unum ex
Quat. lib. i. in loc, according to the Latin version in Max.
Bibl. Pair, xix. 762^)
32. Nicetas Choniates, a.d. 1200, four times. {Thes.
Orthod. lib. i. c. 27 ; iv. 31 ; v. 41, 60, according to the Latin
version in Max. Bibl. Patr. xxv. 75', 130*, 165*, I76^)
We will now attend to the testimony of the Latin Fathers.
Some of them, as Tertullian, Hilary, Victorinus Afer,
Ambrose, and Jerome, were acquainted with Greek, and
occasionally, at least, consulted the original ; but the evi-
dence of the majority bears only on the reading of the Old
Latin and Vulgate versions. Notwithstanding the extraordi-
nary statements of Dr. Tregelles, and various editors of the
Greek Testament who have been misled by Wetstein, no
quotation of John i. 18 with the reading unigenitus Deus has
ever been produced from a single Latin Father. The fol-
lowing quote the passage with the reading Filius : —
1. Tertullian, a.d. 200. {Adv. Prax. c. 15, cf. c. 8.)
2. Hilary of Poitiers, a.d. 354, at least seven times. (Tract,
in Psalm, cxxxviii. c. 35 ; — De Trin. lib. ii. c. 23 ; lib. iv. cc. 8,
42; lib. V. cc. 33, 34; and lib. vi. c. 39. 0pp. coll. 520^
799*. 831% 852^ 873^ 874% 905^ ed. Bened.)*
* In the last passage referred to {De Trin. lib. vi. c. 39) Hilary has commenied on his quo-
tation of John i. 18 in such a way as to demonstrate that he read Filius. He remarks: " Naturse
fides non satis explicata videbatur ex nomine Fiiii, nisi proprietatis extrinsecus virtus per excepti-
onis significantiam adderetur. Przter Filium enim, et unigenitum cognominans, suspicionem
adopticmis penitus exsecuit.'*
The only passage, so far as I know, in all Hilary's writings, which has even the appearance of
supporting the reading unigeHitus Deus^ is in his work De Trin. lib. xii. c. 24, coll. 1124-25; cf.
247, note, tmpra. This is partially quoted by Dr. Tregelles, and has already been adverted to
We will now compare it with the context, which will make it clear thai it aflfords no reason for
supposing that Hilary read Deus instead of Filius in John i. 18. Having quoted Exixl. iii. 14,
" Misit me ad vos is qui est" (Sept. 0 o)v)t and remarking " Deo proprium esse id quod est non
mlHgens sensus est," he goes on to argue that this expression implies eternity, and then says:
"Quod igitur et per Moysen de Deo significatum ... id ipsum unigenito Deo esse proprium
EvangieUa testantur: cum in principio ^ra/Verbum (John i. i), et cum hoc apud Deum emt
ii6id.)f et cum erat lumen verum (ver. 9), et cum unigenitus Deus in sinu Pntris esl (ver. 18),
et etna Jestis Christus super omnia Deus est (Rom. ix. 5). £rni igitur, atque esl; quia ab eo
est, qui quod est semper est."
From this it will be perceived that Hilary's argument rests wholly on the word est. WTicn he
'* cum unigenitus Deus in sinu Patris est," there is no more reason for regarding the words
264 CRITICAL ESSAYS
3. Phcebadius (or Phaebadius), Bp. of Agen in Gaul, a.d.
359. (Cont. A nan. c. 12, in Galland. Bid/. Pair. v. 253, or
Migne's Patrol, xx. 21**.)
4. Victorinus Afer, a.d. 360, six times. {De Gen. Verb.
Div.^ ad Candidmny cc. 16 (unigenitus Dei Filius), 20; —
Adv. Arium, lib. i. cc. 2, 4; lib. iv. cc. 8, 33. In Migne*s
Patrol, viii. 1029, 1030, 1041, 1042, 1 119 (free), 1137. In
the last instance he had the Greek before him. Adv. Arium,
lib. i. c. 15, he omits Filius. Migne, viii. 1050.)
5. Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, a.d. 374, at least seven times.
(De yos. c. 14, al. 84; — De Bcned. Patr. c. 11, al. 51 ; — /;/
Luc. lib. i. c. 25 ; lib. ii. c. 12 ; De Fide, lib. iii. c. 3, al. 24; —
De Spir. Sanct. lib. i. c. I, al. 26; — Epist. xxii. c. 5. Opp.
i. 5I0^ 527^ I274^ 1286^ ii. 501^ 6os^ 875*, ed Bened.)
6. Jerome, a.d. 378. (/;/ Ezek. c. xliv. Opp. iii. 1023,
ed. Mart. ; Migne, xxv. 429, 430.)
7. Faustinus, a.d. 384, three times, (fie Trin. lib. i. c. 2,
§ 5, in Migne's Patrol, xiii. 54**.)
8. Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, a.d. 396, three times. (In
yoan. Tract, xxxi. c. 3 ; xxxv. c. 5 ; xlvii. c. 3. Opp. tom. iii.
P. ii. col. 1638, 1660, 1734, ed. Migne. Cont, Adim. c. 9, viii.
140, Migne.)
9. Adimantus the Manichacan, a.d. 396. {Ap. Augtistinum
cont. Adiinaut. c. 9, § i, Opp. viii. 139, ed. Migne.)
10. Maximinus, the Arian bishop, a.d. 428, twice. {Ap.
Angus tini Collat. cum Maxiviiu. cc. 13, 18, Opp. viii. 719,
728, ed. Migne.)
11. The author of the work against Virimadus ascribed to
Idacius Clarus, a.d. 385, three times. {Adv. Virimad. lib. i.
cc. 64, 6G, in Max. Bibl. Patr. v. 731% 740"^;* Migne, Lxii.
393^ 395*. Unigenitus alone, lib. i. c. 18; Migne, lxii. 366^)
" unigcTiitus Dcu«; " ns qnotecl from John than there is for supposing them to be quoted from Paul
a page or two lx.low (c. 26). where Hilary says, " cum secundum Apostolum ante tempora xteraa
sit uniKenilus Dens," referrinc to 2 Tim. i. 9.
The expression " unigenitus Peus " is a favorite one with Hilary. It occurs in his treatise
Pr Trinitate al)out one hundred and four times. The frequency of this expression in his writings.
with the certainty that he ren-l Filius in John i. 18. shows hnw futile it is to argue from the mere
use of this phrase in the works of a Father that he found it in scripture.
*M'>ntfaucon ascribes this work, and also the first eicht hooks of the one next mentioned, to
Idatius the chronicler (a.d. 445). See his edition of Aihanasius II. 602, 603.
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD *' 265
12. Vigilius of Tapsa, a.d. 484, or the author, whoever he
was, of libri xii. de Trinitatc, {De Trin. lib. iv. in Max. Bibl.
Pair, viii. 783*, or in Athanasii Opp. ii. 615', ed. Montf. ;
Migne, Ixii. 265**.) Unigenitus alone, lib. iii.; Migne, Ixii.
260*.
13. Junilius, A.D. 550. {De Part, Div, Legis, lib. i. c. 16,
in Migne's Patrol. Ixviii. 22*.)
14. Alcuin, A.D. 780. {Coinm. super Joan, in loc. Opp.
i. 472, 473, ed. Froben., or in Migne's Patrol, c. 752^ cf.
753'.)
Other Latin Fathers, as Paschasius Radbertus, Bruno
Astensis, etc., might be cited to the same purpose ; but it is
useless to go any further.
III. The three following Fathers have quoted the passage
with both readings, and their testimony may be regarded as
doubtful ; namely, Origen, Basil the Great, and Cyril of
Alexandria. The last, on the whole, favors 0^6^ ; but as it
seems not improbable that they all had both readings in
their copies of the Greek Testament, we will consider their
evidence together.
1. Origen, a.d. 230, according to the text of the Benedic-
tine edition (De la Rue) has the reading ^^k twice ; on the
other hand, he has vi6q once, once vlbg tov deov^ and once tinigeni-
tus Dei Filius in a work preserved only in the Latin version
of Rufinus.*
2. Basil of Caesarea, a.d. 370, according to the text of his
♦Origen has fit6q^ /« Joan. torn. ii. c. 29, and xxxii. c. 13 (Opp. iv. 89^, 438^, ed. Dc la Rue).
In bctk these passages, however, the very literal version of Ferrari, made from a MS. now lost,
reads unigenituM alone, without either Dens or Filius. If he had r/or in his Greek copy, the
Omission would be unimportant: but if he had ihoc^, the neglect to translate it would be strange
and inexcusable. On the other hand, we have x^ \/tr, Cont. Cels. lib. ii. c. 71, Opp. i. 440^. ^tuv
^^t\q idpaKt ttuttote • 6 junvoyevr/^ vior, 6 tov nc rov k67.tov rnv rrar(>6r, FKfivor
i^fjfyi^aTo. So De la Rue and Lommatzsch, from two MS.S.; the earlier edition of Hoeschcl,
Counded on a single MS., instead of© finvnyn-r/c v'tor reads unl /jovnyn'^c ye ijv (Unr.
But this, it will at once be perceived, bears the mark^ of a marginal gloss, which, by one of the
looM common of mistakes in MSB., has been substituted for the text. Compare the similar gloss
in Eusebius De Eceles. Theol. lib. i. c. 9, noticed above; cf. p. 259. T/(V rov fteor occurs,
/• 7oam. torn. vi. c. a, Opp. iv. 102^, as edited by De la Rue and Lommatzsch from the Hodleian
MS., which appears to be an excellent one; the earlier edition of Huet, which was founded on a
ttn^e MS., reads rtdf 8f6^. A little after, in two allusions to the passasrc. o iiovnyeviic >s used
alone; Ol>p. ir. io2«, 114c. •' Unigenitus Dei Filius." In Cattt. lib. iv. Opp. iii. 9i<'. Uttigftiitus
Fiiiuty$%\ before, alluding to the passage.
266 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Benedictine editors (Garnier and Maran), has Oed^ once, and
in another passage he mentions True Son, Only-Begotten
God, Power of God, Wisdom, and Logos, as names given to
Christ in scripture ; but he twice quotes the text in question
with the reading vi6g*
3. Cyril of Alexandria, a.d. 412, as edited by Aubert, has
fiedc four times, and vide three times. His commentary on the
passage, as printed, favors Oed^^ but its evidence is somewhat
weakened by various readings.!
The whole of the external evidence for the different read-
ings of the passage in question, so far as I am acquainted
with it, has now been stated. If one should look into
Wetstein, and find apparently a considerable number of
authorities which have not been noticed, he may be assured
that they have all been carefully examined, and that they
amount to nothing. The same is true of the vague refer-
ences to *'alii pertnultiy' ''alii miilti,' in the last edition of
Tischendorf, and of similar references in other critical edi-
tions of the Greek Testament, all founded on Wetstein's
♦Basil reads fiedg, De Spir. Sand. c. 6, Opp. iii. 12b. Comp. ibid. c. 8, p. 14c, where he
says, 0/ Je ^a^j [/) ypnoif^ ru ovoua iTtp Tzdv ovn/ua rov vioi\ Kni viov d/^ivbv '/.eyeiv
(al. /tyfi), Ktii uovoyFi'f/ Hfov, Kfii (Vvvniiiv fttoJ', kuI crooiav, Ktti /.6yov. On the
othei hand, he has vi/xj, De Spir. Sand. c. 11, Opp. iii. 23*, where the six MSS. of Garnier
appear to agree in this reading, though one of Matthaei's Moscow MSS. has WfOf (see Matthaei's
Nov. Test. Grace, i. 780). He again has y'uK, apparently without any variation in the ten MSS.
of Garnier, Epist. 234 (al. 400), c. 3, Opp. iii. 358'>. Here Matthaei's Moscow MS. also reads
t Cyril reads Ht (>r, Thfs. Assert, xiii. and xxv. Opp. v. i. 137^, 237»; but Latin of Bona-
vetitura Kw/rrt/z/wj, *' unigenitus fil. Dei" (Drummond). The correctness of ^f(>c in his text in
the last instance is confirmed by the citations of this passage of Cyril in Catenae, from which it has
been printed in his Comm. on Luke ii. 7, in Mai'-; XiK'a I'atr. Bibl. ii. 123, and Migne's Patrol.
Gr. Ixxii. 487*; also in the Catena published by Cramer (vi. 305) on Col. i. x6. He has ^fof
moreover, in the Dialogue Quod Unus sit Christus, Opp. v. i. 763«'. In his Comm. on John i.
18 he has v'lo^ in the text, Opp. iv. 103*"; but toward the end of his remarks he quotes the passage
with the reading fhoc, p- 107b. He also s.nys: 'E::i7r^f)r^r(oi' (St rrn'/^r, iirt f/nvoyn'f/ Heov
drroKci/ei rov viov, p. 105^. But here the scholion in one of Matthxi's Moscow MSS. cites him
as saying, 'ETfrz/pz/rfor roivi'V, on kg I fiovo}trf/ drrnKO/ti ruv vluv, omitting ^fov, 9nd
the Catena in Corderius, 'Err/r. rrd'/ n> ore Kin uovo^eri/ tiehv 'a-oKa'/^i rov ICiov, K.r.A.
Still, the commentary, on the whole, confiriVis the reading Hedr.
He has the reading »• l 0 r , TAes. Assert, xxxv., and Adr>. Xestorium^ lib. iii. c. 5, Opp. v. i.
365C, and VI. i. 90b. This reading is also found twice in an extract which he gives from Julian, in
his work against that em{)cror. Opp. vi. ii. 333<^.
In an a//«j/(£j« to John i. 18 we find o fjioio)fVf){ rov 6eov /(5}'0f, 6 iv Kd/.^TIHC WV
rov rrarfjog. Apol. adv. Orient. Opp. vi. 187c,
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD 267
note.* They relate without exception, not to quotations of
the passage in question, but merely to examples of the
phrase fiovoyev^g Oedc OF unigeuitus Deus^ employed without any
allusion to John i. i8. After all that has been said, it will
hardly be pretended that the mere use of this expression by
a Greek or Latin Father affords any evidence that he read it
in this passage. We might as well argue from the frequency
of the expression 6 Qthq y^yoq in the writings of the Fathers
from the third century downwards, or of OeordKog and Deipara
applied to the Virgin Mary, or of ** God the Son *' in modern
theological works, that these precise designations must have
been found in scripture by those who have so freely employed
them. Though the phrase has now become unusual, there
were good reasons for its popularity in ancient times. The
Arians, who laid great stress on the fact that the Father was
"unbegotten '* and "without beginning," aykwi]roq and avapxo^^
were fond of calling the Son "the only-begotten God,"
because, while the term expressed his high dignity, it brought
into view his derived existence. Begotten by an act of God's
will, he could not, they argued, be eternal. The Orthodox,
on the other hand, who saw no absurdity in the idea of
eternal generation, were fond of the expression, because they
regarded it as indicating his derivation from the substance of
the Father, as it is explained in the Nicene Creed, -"ttwrfiivraiK
roO irarpo^ iiavoyevrj, Tovriariv^ ek rf/g ovaiaq tov irarpdq, Behv ek 6eov, Both the
Arians and the Orthodox freely applied the term Oedg to
Christ.
Before proceeding to consider the internal evidence for the
different readings, it will be convenient to present the results
•It may be worth while to say that the Opus Imper/ectum, a Latin commentary on Matthew
cited by Tischendorf and others as an authority for Hto^, contains no quotation of John i. i8. It
has the txpresstOH "unigenitus Dcus " in the remarks on Matthew i. 20, v. 9, xix. 17, and xxiv.
41. The work is appended to torn. vi. of the Benedictine ed. of Chrysostom.
It may be satisfactory to refer here also to the places where this expression occurs in some other
writers, who have been erroneously cited as authorities for the reading /imnynf/C ^f^'JC *" Jolin i.
»8. See Ptendo-lgnat. ad PAi/aJ. c. 6 (the larger recension); Const. Apost. iii. 17; v. 20; vii.
38,43: viii. 7, 35; Arius, ap, Atkanas. de Syn. c. 15, 0pp. i. 728^, but not ap. Epiph. Hacr. Ixix.
c. 6, Opp. i. ysi**, n'/;7p^f ^fOf. iinvnyevJ,r ; Astcrius, ap. Athauas. de Syn. c 18, p. 73ab;
EuDomius, Expos. Fid. c. 3, and ApoL cc. 15, 21, 26 (/»/. Fabric. Bibl. Grafc. torn, viii.) : Greg.
Nas. Episi. 209, ad Nectarium^ Opp. ii. i68e; Gaudentius, Serm. xix., in Migne's Patrol, xx,
990b; Ferrandas, Epist. iii. cc. 3, 7, 9^x1; v. 2, 5: vii. 12; in Migne, Ixvii.
268
CRITICAL ESSAYS
of the preceding examination in a tabular form, so that one
may see at a glance the authorities for each. The figures
added to the names of the Fathers denote the time when
they flourished.
FOR THE READING ^c<5f.
Manuscripts.
K*, B, C*, L, 33.
FOR THE READING v*^.
Manuscripts.
K**, A, C», X, ^. E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, .V,
1, 69, and, with one exception, all the other cur-
sive MSS., several hundred in number, which
have been examined on the passage.
Versions.
Pesh. Syr., Hard. S}t.
(marg.),Copt.,Aeth.(Rom.
ed.)
Greek Fathers.
Clem. Al.i»*, Theod.iw
Epiph.8^^ t/iree times, and
one ref., Didym.^"'', iwice^
and one ref. (?); Cyr. Ai.'**^^,
four times, and one ref. (?),
but v'li'jr three times.
Perhaps, 2d Syn. An-
cyr.868^ ojig ref., and Greg.
Nyss-^'*^, one ref., and ciji^ht
allusions^ but both very
uncertain. (See above,
pp. 254-257.)
Latin Fathers.
None.
Versions,
Old Lat., Vulg., Curet. Syr., Hard. S}t.
(text), Jerus. S)t., Aeth. (Piatt's ed.), Armen.
Greek Fathers,
Iren.i'S probably, Hippol.^^o, 3d Syn. Ant.2»,
Archel.*^, Alex. Al.*^^ Euseb.*", j/jt times, and
one alius., Eustath. Ant.'*^, Athanas.*^,/i?///- or
rather seven times, Pseud-Athan.**** *•"*•', Cyr.
Hier.8^, probably, Julian3«-, twice. Tit. Bostr.^
Greg. Naz.87^ PseuiiO'V»2&\\., Rufin. S\t.»^,
Chrysost.**% ei)[^ht times, Theod. Mops.**'^', Non-
nus^i^ probably, Theodoret**'®, yi?//r times, Pro-
clus^8^ /'^Y//^/f>-Cyr.fit''c*^"'-, Andr.Cret.*^*, Pscmio-
Ca^sarius"'*''^^"^ •, Joan. \y^m'^, thrice, Theod.
Stud.- 13, tijuice, Andr. presb.^^ «<^"»- •, Caten. ed.
Cramer^th or I'nh ccnt.^ Theoph.i'^-^ Euthym.l"^
thrice, Elias Cret.^^o^ Zach. Chrys."^'. Nic.
Chon.i-^'^^.
Latin Fathers.
Tert.2^^, Hilar.8^, j^7V« times, Phoebad.8«>,Vic-
torin. Afer^^\ six times, Ambrose*^*, seven times,
Jerome'^"\ Faustin.*^**, three times, August.*^.
three times. Adimant.^ Maximin."**"^, tijice, Ida-
cius'^^'""-/*', three times, Vigil. Taps.**^, Junil.^o,
Alcuin'-^'^, and others.
Wholly doubtful. Origen-^^, Basil the Great^"''. See the full account
of their readings above.
ON THE READING " ONLY -BEGOTTEN GOD " 269
This exposition of the evidence makes it apparent that
Dr. Tregelles has been somewhat incautious in asserting
that fiovoycvfK Se6g is " the ancient reading of the Fathers
generally.''
In estimating the external evidence, it is important to
consider the wide geographical distribution of the witnesses
for viof. They represent every important division of the
Christian world. The reading v\6q is attested by the Cure-
tonian, Harclean, and Jerusalem Syriac versions ; by the
Third Synod at Antioch, Eustathius of Antioch, and Theodo-
ret ; by Titus of Bostra in Arabia ; by Gregory of Nazianzus
in Cappadocia, and Theodore of Mopsuestia in Cilicia ; by
the Armenian version ; by Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine,
w-ho paid particular attention to the text of the Gospels,
and was commissioned by the Emperor Constantine to pro-
cure fifty copies of the scriptures carefully written for the
Use of the churches at Constantinople ; by Alexander and
Athanasius of Alexandria ; by Chrysostom and Proclus of
Constantinople ; by the Old Latin and Vulgate versions, and,
apparently, the whole Western Church, without exception.
On the other hand, the authorities for ^e<5f, besides being
much more limited in number, are, so far as we know their
locality, almost wholly Egyptian.*
Comparing the readings in respect to antiquity, we find in
favor of w<if, before the middle of the fourth century, the Old
Latin and Curetonian Syriac versions, Irenaeus (probably),
TertuUian, Hippolytus, the Third Synod at Antioch (a.d. 269),
Archelaus, Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius, Eustathius of
Antioch, and Athanasius : on the other side, we have during
this period only the Peshito Syriac (if that version in its
present form is so ancient), Clement of Alexandria (some-
what doubtful), the Excerpta Theodotiy and the Coptic version.
In the period that follows, though the few MSS. that support
H are of the highest character, the evidence, on the whole,
must be regarded as preponderating against 't.
•The Harclean Syriac in the margin represents the reading of one or two Greek MSS. with
which it was orated at Alexandria^ a.d. 6i6.
270 CRiriCAL ESSAYS
We now come to the internal evidence. It is urged in
favor of ^cof that fiowyevf/g naturally suggests the word wl<Jf, so
that a transcriber might easily inadvertently substitute it for
<^cdf. This consideration appears to be of some weight.
It is also urged in favor of ^voyev^iq Qtoq that it is entitled
to preference as the more difficult reading, being one at
which transcribers would naturally stumble as an unexampled
expression. This argument, however, will not bear examina-
tion. In the first place, if transcribers were struck with
the expression as remarkable, it is not probable that they
would intentionally alter it. They would be more likely
to reverence it as containing a mystery. In the second
place, though ^\^yniiq (feog may sound strangely to us, it
was not a strange or harsh expression to copyists of the
third, fourth, and fifth centuries. On the contrary, it was,
as we have seen, a favorite phrase with many writers ol
this period, being used with equal freedom both by the
Arians and their opponents. So far from stumbling at it,
transcribers may have been led, by their very familiarity with
the expression, to introduce it unconsciously into the text.
Let us look at the passage in John. In the clause imme-
diately preceding 6 fiovoyein/^ vi6i\ tieuv had just occurred, bring-
ing Ofdc before the mind of the copyist. Is it strange that
in transcribing he should inadvertently connect this word
with //oiojM/;^, the combination being so familiar to him, the
words ec and yc being so similar in ancient MSS., and Oedc
being so much the more common of these two abbreviated
words ? Such a mistake, in some early MS. or MSS., might
have been easily propagated, so as to extend to the compara-
tively few authorities which exhibit the reading Oeog, It is
much more difficult to account for such an ancient and wide-
spread corruption as must have taken place, if ^^k proceeded
originally from the pen of the Evangelist. If he had written
//oio;n7/f (^toc in this passage, so remarkable an expression must
have early attracted attention, and stamped itself inefface-
ably, like the language in the first verse of his Gospel,
upon the whole Christian literature. It would have been
continually quoted and appealed to.
I THE READING '
ooo"
I
Hilt there is another aspect of the internal evidence, which
must strike every one who reads the passage in question
with attention. " No man hath seen Gon at any time ; the
only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him." Is it not evident that the introduction
of the phrase " only-begotten God," after the use of the
word " God " a/one and absolutely, immediately before it, is
a harshness which we can hardly suppose in any writer.'
Does not the word " Father," in a sentence like this, almost
necessarily imply that the correlative " Son " has just pre-
ceded ? And is there anything analogous to this expression,
"the only-begottcn God," in the writings of John, or in any
other part of the New Testament .'
In closing this discussion, the writer wishes to e.\press
his great respect for Dr. Tregelles, and the earnest desire
that his life and health may be spared for the completion of
the important work on which he has been so long engaged.
No scholar of the present century, with the single exception
of Tischendorf, has so high a claim on the gratitude of all
who are solicitous to obtain the purest possible text of the
original records of our religion. His labors for this object
have displayed a patient, earnest, and self-sacrificing devo-
tion worthy of the highest admiration. The reasons for
differing from him in opinion in regard to the genuineness
of ^ti^. in John i. i8, and for desiring a more complete and
accurate statement of the evidence than he has given in this
case, have now been laid before the readerj who will judge of
the whole matter for himself.
XIII.
ON THE READING "AN ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD."
OR "GOD ONLY-BEGOTTEN," JOHN L i8.
[From the UMttarian Review and Religious Magazine for June, 1875.]
Gedv ovdfif e6p€iKev wuKore • 6 uoi>oyevi^ vl6^ [var. reading ftovoyeii/^ ^^k"]* 0 uv
As the writer of the present article has already twice dis-
cussed the reading of this passage, — first in the Appendix to
Norton's Statement of Reasons, etc. (2d ed., 1856), pp. 448-
469, and afterwards in the Bib, Sacr, for Oct., 1861, p. 840
sqq. [see Essay XII.], — an apology may be needed for return-
ing to the subject. The question, however, has acquired a
new interest in connection with the revision of the common
English version of the Bible which is now in progress in
England and this country. It is well known that two of the
most eminent among the scholars of the British Committee
engaged in this work, Dr. Westcott and Mr. Hort, have
adopted the reading *' God " in the text of their (as yet un-
published) critical edition of the Greek Testament. Another
of the British revisers, Professor Milligan, has accepted it as
the true reading, in Milligan and Roberts's T/ie Words of the
A\'w Tcstmncnt, etc. (1873), p. 162 ff. ; and Professor Light-
foot, in his valuable work On a FrcsJi Revision of the English
New Testament (2d ed., 1872), p. 27, remarks that "the * Only-
begotten God ' would seem to have equal or superior claims
to 'the Only-begotten Son' in John i. 18, and must either
supersede it or claim a place side by side with it." Dr. Tre-
gelles receives it into the text of his important edition of the
Greek Testament (Part II., 1861), and had previously de-
fended its genuineness in his Acconnt of the Printed Text of
the Greek New Testament (1854), p. 234 f. ; Lachmann placed
it in the margin of his critical editions (1831 and 1842) as an
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTfEN GOD " 273
alternate reading, and would undoubtedly have taken it into
the text, had he known all the authorities by which it is
supported.
It must not be supposed, however, that there is a general
agreement of scholars in favor of this reading. Tischendorf,
though he had adopted it in the second edition of his Synop-
sis Evaui^elica (1864), has restored the reading '' Son " to the
text in his eighth critical edition of the Greek Testament
(1869) ; Alford retains 1-% (6th ed., 1868), though giving Qm
a place in his margin ; Dr. Scrivener, also a member of the
British Biblical Revision Committee, defends the reading
** Son " in his Introduction to the Criticism of the Xcw Testa-
ntent (2d ed., 1874), p. 525!;* and Bishop Wordsworth does
not even notice the reading ^f<^ in his edition of the Greek
Testament (5th ed., 1866). The reading " Son " is also
defended by Rev. T. S. Green, M.A., in his Course of Devel-
oped Criticism^ etc. (1856), p. 73, and Critical Appendix to the
Twofold New Testament (187-), p. 33 ; by Dr. Samuel David-
son, art. " Manuscripts, Biblical," in Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl.
Lit, (3d ed., 1870), iii. 60; by Professor James Drummond,
of Manchester New College, in an able article in the Theo-
logical Review for October, 1871, pp. 468-495 ; and by Rev.
J. B. McClellan, M.A., in his recent learned and elaborate
work, The New Testament . . . a New Translation . . . from a
critically revised Greek Text, etc. (Lond. 1875), vol. i. p. 707 f.
Among scholars of the present century on the continent of
Europe, I know of none who have adopted the reading ^for.f
It is emphatically rejected as a dogmatic gloss by Godet
(1864) ^^^ Meyer (1869) in their recent Commentaries on the
(Jospel of John ; and it is also rejected or ignored entirely
by Olshausen (1838), Lucke (1840), Tholuck (1857), Ewald
(1861), Bruckner and De Wette (1863), Baumlcin (1863),
Hengstenberg (1867), Lange (1868), and so by Dr Schaff in
his American translation ; see his note. It is also ignored in
the most important recent translations which professedly
represent a critically revised Greek te.xt ; as that of Holtz-
♦[So, too, in the 3d ed. (1883) ; sec especially p. 606, note.]
tCNow adopted by Harnack, Weiss, ai.\
2 74 CRITICAL ESSAYS
mann in Bunsen's Bibelwerk^ vol. iv. (1864), the American
Bible Union (2d revis., 1867), the new authorized Dutch
translation by Van Hengel and others (Amst. 1868), the
French version of Oltramare (Geneve, 1872), and the Ger-
man translation by Weizsacker (1875). The French transla-
tion of Rilliet (Geneve, i860) is not an exception, as that
only represents the Vatican MS.
The question, then, is evidently an open one ; and the
object of the present article is to state and weigh, as fairly
as possible, the evidence for the rival readings. It may be
proper to mention that the substance of the paper was pre-
pared at the request of the New Testament Company of the
American Biblical Revision Committee, though no one but
the writer is responsible for any statement or argument which
it may contain. It is hoped that the account of the evidence
will be found somewhat fuller and more accurate than has
elsewhere been given ; but, to avoid unnecessary repetition
of what has already been published, I shall often refer, for
details, to the articles in the Bibliothcca Sacra and the Theo-
logical RcvicWy which are mentioned above. Alford's note
also gives very fully the context of some of the passages
cited from the Christian Fathers. In adducing authorities
not noticed in Tischendorf's last critical edition (1869), refer-
ences are given ; but it is assumed that one who is specially
interested in the investigation of the question will have
that edition at hand.
The evidence, then, for the different readings is as
follows : —
I. Manuscripts. — For nwoyn^iq dedq, «, B, C*, L, 33 (««, 33,
Vox 6 finv. rvof, A. X. T, A. A. H, C^, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V,
* In the liihliotheca Sacra for Ociobcr. 1861 (p. 850), i)r(\c^ was given as the reading of X
a prima mauu, as if it had l>ccn afterwards corrected. The text of the MS. was not then pul>-
lishe.l. and I «vas tuisird Kv Tisch«Midnrf, who. in his Notitia Cod. S ina // I'ci (iSSo), p. 18, Rave
the readin;; a«i follows: " Joh. i. iS a prima norirnw/n (absque o cum BC*L) tkna (cum BC*L
etc.) rm (om o (.)i )." I naturally supposed the " a prima" to refer to all the variations froai the
Received Text, not nu.rcly to the fir^t and the last. Dr. Tregelles before me had fallen into t'lc
s.iine error {Text. Cri/., 2d cd., p. 780).
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOITEN GOD " 275
fhe cursives i, 22, 28, 118, 157, 209, all of which are of excep-
^ional importance and value, also Professor Ferrar's group,
^ 3» 69, 124, 346, which he regards as representing an early
vincial akin to D, but with a purer text ; * and all other known
crursives, several hundred in number, but the majority of them
mot carefully examined, or of little worth. D, unfortunately,
is mutilated here; but the versions and Fathers with which
it usually agrees support vloc.
Of these MSS., « and B are assigned to the middle of the
fourth century, A and C to the middle of the fifth, E and L
are of the eighth century, the other uncials of the ninth or
tenth. Among the later uncials, L, X, r, ^, a. n, arc dis-
tinguished from the rest, L pre-eminently, by their more
frequent agreement with the oldest authorities. The cursive
MS. 33 is of remarkable excellence.
The MS. authority for 0e6^ is weighty, though confined to
the representatives of an Alexandrian or Egyptian text. In
a large majority of cases, the reading supported by these
MSS. against the rest is confirmed by other ancient evidence
and by intrinsic probability, and has a good claim to be
adopted. On the other hand, they all, or the most of them,
sometimes concur in readings which arc clearly false, or ex-
ceedingly improbable, or very doubtful. See, for example, «,
B, C, L, U, r, Matt, xxvii. 49; «, B, C*, A, Cop.,Hcl. Syr."^'^-
Aeth., Mark iii. 14; k, B, D, L, a, Mark vi. 22 ; B*, C, L, V,
Luke i. 17 ; K, B, D, U, X, 33, Luke xv. 21 ; k', B*, C*, John i. 15 ;
K, B, L, T^ 33, John iii. 13 ; B, L, T, X, r, a, etc., John vii. 8 ;
n, B, H, L, P, 61, Acts xii. 25 (impossible). Sec also for k, B,
in particular, Matt. vi. 8; xvi. 21 ; Mark iv. 21 ('-o for i-i,
impossible); Luke xxiii. 32; Acts xvi. 32; James i. 17 ; 2
Peter ii. 13. As to the cursives, those first named above are
nearly, some of them perhaps quite, equal in value to 33 ///
the Gospels ; I, 22, and 209, especially, are often right where
it is wrong. See, e,g,^ Matt. v. 44 ; vi. i, 6, 13 ; xix. 16, 17 ;
Luke xi. 2, 4, and numberless other passages.
•See Scrirener's introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 167, and Addenda
lodo., p. is. (ad ed., 1874) : [ice 3d ed. (1883), p. 181].
276 ( RinCAL ESSAYS
Such bein*; the state of the case, the MS. authority for
II. <^c<>f, though important, cannot be regarded as in itself
decisive.
II. Ancient Versions. — For B^k, the Coptic or Mem-
phitic (3d cent., or perhaps even the 2d), Peshito Syriac (in
its present form, 4th cent. ; so Tregelles, Westcott and Hort,
Crowfoot, Payne Smith, Lightfoot), Harclean Syriac in the
margin (a.d. 616), Aethiopic (4th or 5th cent.) in the Roman
edition.
F'or v'lor, Old Latin (2d cent.), a, b, c, e, f, ff^, 1, filiusy q fil. dei;
Vulgate (a. I). 384), Curetonian Syriac (2d cent.), Jerusalem
Syriac (5th cent. .^), Harclean Syriac in the text (here proba-
bly - Philoxcnian, a.d. 508), Aethiopic in Piatt's edition,
which is the best ; Armenian (fir. a.d. 431).
Though Wilkins and Malan (Gospel of St. John) in their
translations of the Coptic give its reading as "the only-
bcgotten of God," and are followed by Scrivener and
McClellan, this is doubtless an error ; see Schwartze's note
/;/ loc.
III. Fathers. — (In citing their names, the year when
they flourished is noted, generally as assigned by Cave.)
Vox ff'<k. Clem. Alcx.^'**-, once, but once in reference rwc er6c ;
llxccrpta ex Tlieodoto (Valentinians), 2d cent. (.') ; Epiphan.**^
three times, and one ref. ; Didym. Alex.**^''^ twice, and one
rcf. (.^) ; Cyr. Alex.^^- four times, and one ref., but t/W three
times (0pp. iv. 103% v. i. 365'', vi. i. 90'% also (alius.) «/">»'• "«»•
{)u,v-/uyac (vi. i. 1 87*"). Pevluips 2d Syuod of Ancyra^^ one ref.,
and Greg. Nyss.-'^"^ one ref. and eight allusions (0pp. iii. 291',
and in addition to what Tisch. cites, ii. 432*', 478**, 506*", 595
[605]', 691"), but I'Vif twice in similar allusions (Opp. ii. 466^
iii. 648"), and " '^v lyinrntr (ho- oucc (i. 697*). The inconclusive-
ncss of such references and allusions is illustrated in Bib,
S(7e. (as above), pp. 855-857 ; see also below, p. 280.
No quotation of the passage with the reading dens has
been proJuced from any Latin Father.*
♦The apparent exception in the case of Hilary (/V Triii. xii. 24. Mijjne x. 448*) is increly
ON THE READING ** ONLY -BEGOTTEN GOD " 277
For vide, Ircn.^®^, in a very ancient Latin version, has once
^/ius deiy once filiuSy and once dens ; in the first two cases
the context Iclvovs filins ; Hippol.^ 3d Syn. of Antioch*^'*,
Archelaus*^" {Disp. c. Man. c. 32, in an Old Lat. version ;
Migne x. 1479''), Alexander of Alexandria^*'^ Eiiseb.'*^^ six
times, and one ref. (see below), Eustathius of Antioch*^ {Dc
Engastr, c. 18, Migne xviii. 652*"), Athanas.^^ four times, and
three ref., P^vW-Athan."'"'^'*' (Cont. Sab, c. 2, Migne xxviii.
100**), the Emperor Julian'*^^ twice (cip. Cyr. Alex. 0pp. vi. ii.
333), Tit. Bostr.^'- once, and once \ii*^(hd*:\ Greg. Naz.^'^,
y^j^z/rft^-Basil.""*"- (Hom. in Ps. xxviii. c. 3, Opp. i. 359, im-
j)roperly cited by Tisch. as if genuine), Rufinus Syr. or
Palaest.'"'' *^ {Dc Fidcy c. 16, in a Latin trans. ; Migne, Patrol.
Lat, xxi. 1 131*), Chrys.**^ eight times, Theod. Mops."^^" (in
Joh. i. 29 ; Migne Ixvi. 733**), Theodoret*^^ four times,
Proclus*^, Pscndo-Q^'xW (5th cent. }) (Dc Trin. c. 6, Migne
Ixxv. 1 1 53; Cardinal Mai published this as Cyril's; I have
followed Dr. Tregelles, Printed Text^ p. 232, note f), Andr.
Cret.**^' {Or, in Transf., Migne xcvii. 940*"), Joan. Damas-
cen.'*^ five times (Migne xciv. 789* ; xcv. 204*"^, 216**). So the
later Greek Fathers, as Germanus^^^ {Rev. Reel, Cont., Migne
xcviii. 429^ or (iall. xiii. 21 5*'), Theod. Stud.'**^ twice (Migne
xcix. 396s 1216'), Andr. presb., Theophyl., Euthymius three
times (Migne cxxix. 1125'*, 1128*=; cxxx. 1296''); see above,
p. 262. Probably, Cyril of Jerusalem'^''" (see above, p. 260) ;
and perhaps Nonnus*^'' ; see Tischendorf.
The Latin Fathers all support r/V. So Tertullian^^ once,
and one allusion, Hilary*^ seven times, Phoebadius'^'*^ once
{Cont. Arian, c. 12, Migne xx. 21), Victorinus Afer^*^ six
times, Hilarius diaconus^"^ or Auct. Qnaest.cx ittroqne Test.
apparent, the " uni(;cnitus den»" forming no part of the quotation from John i. i8. just as *• Jctiis
Christus" forms no part of the quotation from Rom. ix. 5, and as " unigenitus dcn»" is no part ')f
tlic ciuotation from a Tim. i. 9. a little below (c. afi). What precedes and follows shows that the
whole stress of Hil ir\'*s argument rest-* on the word rst. Chrv'sostom arsues in ju«4t the sime wiv
from the !, ,:,j. in this passage (Opp. i. 47^-^. 477". ind viii. 37«h, cd. Montf.V. ««e also Kplphan.
Ancor. c. 5, Hasil. Adv. Eutiotn. iv. 2 (Omm. i. ?<?i. Ay. ( n»j»i). and Cre?. Nvss. Adr'. Enn^tn.
lib. X. (Opp. ii. 680-AS.O. Or. Truucllrs's '"rt in scqucntibtis s^rfir" is wholly mislcadinc if he
means that this is anything m'^rc thnn ihf :ippli«atic»n by Hilary of a favnrilr r»pj>frllniinn to Christ.
Hilary has qtiotcd John i. 18 with the r«'adinn,/f//«j >cvcn times, and the passage Dc Trin. vL
39 proves that he did nut read dens.
278 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Pars II. qu. i {ap. Augustini Opp, iii. ii. 3099^ ed Bened.
2'^) once, Ambrose^* seven times, Jerome once (In Ezek. xliv.
I seqq.), Faustinus^** four times, Augustine^®® three times,
Adimantus the Manichaean**, Maximinus the Arian^^ twice,
Vigilius of Tapsa (?)*^ three times (Migne Ixii. 265*, 393^
395*)» Junilius^ Alcuin"®^, and so on ; see, for references,
above, pp. 263-265. Fulgentius should not be cited, as
he is by Tisch. for films ^ and by Treg. for deus. He has
nowhere, properly speaking, quoted the passage ; his allusiotis
(Migne Ixv. 272^ 454*^, 459'', 583^ 679^ 681**) are all quoted
in the Bib. Sac, p. 857. [above, p. 257].
Doubtful. I. Origen^** has the reading Btdq twice (Opp. iv.
89, 438, cd. De la Rue). Here, however, the very literal
version of Ferrari, made from a MS. now lost, reads unigcnitiis
alone, in both places (see Huet's ed. of Origen's Comm, ii.
^2y 406), though De la Rue has added dcus in the second
instance. A translator might regard filius as superfluous
with ujiigenitus, but not so dcus. On the other hand, Origen
has o//"i'. van: once, Cont. Cels. ii. 71 (Opp. i. 440). So De la
Rue and Lommatzsch, from two MSS. ; Iloeschers ed., from
a single MS., reads khi ,nor. ;t «:m //for, which bears clear
marks of being a marginal gloss.* In another quotation of
* Compare ihc intcri>ol.itiun in Hcvcschel's edition of the same treatise, lib. i. c. 63, by which
()ri);en is made to quote 1 Tim. i. is thus: . . . '\f,(rnii- Xfunrut; o tito^' if/Hfv *ic tov
hnrnmv ('tij(if)Tt.)'/ni r ni'.iaa/. where De la Rue oniit-i 1) tUu< on the authority of four MSS. and
the Philocalia. A similar .i;Ki>«» has apparently been added to the text ui Kuseb. Df Kcci. 'I hfol.
i. i^, i>. e>7'l : /, //or v'ltn;. i, iinr th oc. n /.)•, h.r./. I ^'C context seems clearly to show ih.nt
Kusebius read r-nr here, as in five other places: see above, p. 250. Such a mode of designat-
ing an alterfiate reading, as we mu t otherwise sup|M)sc, is almost unexampled. Not wholly
so; see Origen, Coinm. iti Joan. t. .\.xvi;i. c. 14. (^J'p. iv. 392'>, who cites Heb. ii. 9 in this way:
or; \pifnfTai ru> h-un; \nii'Ti. ;/. \i.iivr ftfni /t^/j TTdiror ;^■<m^n/ Oanimv. See, on the
other hand, Origen's motie of citing the pasvige, Opp. iv. 4i«', \(.if)n' thov . . . if oTTtp h' T r.i
HiiTdi oiTry)/j(>;/r 1a/r^//^v.^• For other remarkable instances of interpolation or
rorruption of the text in .MSS.. see \V<M>!«;in's .V, T. ii. s-)'"'-. J'^** paragraph, and 865.
It may be well here to n..ti.c a pas>aec in %%hi.h KmscIhiis aiIo:vs the appellation //oro}n7V
^- ,»• as applirtd to the Son. thnich he .'oe< not afTimi that it is given him in scripture. He sa>'S
(Dr Frrl. Th^ol. iii. 6. p. Tyijn^ " And he alone [ihc Father] may be called (' :i7»r/Mfjr/0M hv\
One C.o.i and Father of onr Lord I.-s-.is ("hrist. while the Son m, iv be called Only-begotten Go<l. he
who i< in the bosom f,f the Fu'.er. bm t>ic Parvh.'t^ ' ,-r TIclpini:> '^nirit can be called neither Ood
nor Son. since he h.»s not like ili*- S>n been g.-n.-ratcd froTi r,.\) the Father, but i> one of the beings
made through the Son." I wouM here th mk P-nO-^or PrMmm-^nd for nointins out an error in
mv former translation of thi*; nis>«-.' ' l^ih. >^nc.. o. R'-i. noteV. and woul«l r.frr to his article for
a full exhibition of the quotations of Fusebius wiih their context, which lea\c no room for doubt
THE READING " ONLV-liEGOTTEN C
379
John i. 18 (0pp. iv. 103), De la Rue and Lommatzsch edit
» /JO,: lifit rm" tiimi ; the earlier ed. of Huet reads wuf Bii(. A littk'
after, in two allusions, we find i ii<nH,^n-i,i: alone (0pp. iv. 102,
114). Again we have in a quotation (in Rufinus's translation)
nwggnitus dei filins (Opp. iii. 91), where the context confirms
the reading, having utttgenitits filiits just before in an allusion
to the passage.
As to the variations, the occasional addition oi ravnrov or
(/«, as in the Old Lat, q, Irenreus, Victorinus {Ad Cand. 16),
Auct. Quaest. qu. 91, p. 2913 (Aiigitsttiii Opp. 111. ii.), Ful-
gentius (alius., De Fide. 17), or of »>>■'. (Clem, Alex, and Til.
Bostr. above), for the sake of strengthening the expression,
or the omission of <-ik ^ndfiliiis, as by Cod. gat. of the Vulg.,
Pseud-lgnM., Origen (see above),* Aphraates*"^ f {Horn. vi.
7, p. IIS Wright, alius.), Cyril of Jer, Kpiph. (.*). Chrys.
(Opp. i. 47S^ ed. Montf.), Nonnus, /'jcW-Ath. {Q. ad Ant.
28), Max. Conf.»" (In Dion. At: Ep. ix), Victorinus {Adv.
Ar. i. 15), Ambr, Vigil. Taps. (Migne, Ixii. 260*, 366^, and
Kulgentius (De Inc. c. 18, alius.), as unessential, would be
natural enough if i /.umfn v, tii^ was the original reading; but
if Hnit were genuine, "Jiii would hardly be inserted before it,
and it would not be easily omitted.
In Orig. Opp. iv. 92, cited by Treg. and Tisch,, we have
merely the expression " unigenitus deus salvator noster," with
no sign of even an allusion to John i. 18. The like is true of
Marcel, ap. Ens. p. 19', and Isid. Pel. Ep. Iii. 95, cited by
Trcgelles. Dr. Tregelles further cites twelve writers as
using the phrase /jorajmjc erdc gt nnigenitus dens "saepissime.
. . . lanquam nomeii Jesu in Scriptura tributum." A careful
examination of these writers will show, if I have made no
mistake, that only one of them (Greg. Nyss.) intimates that
ItiH Ib hen rod vXat IT»»/. S^itm, pp. 48(^3). li my be idded ihu Tii
TicgiUea hate Hot nodced the qiMHlnn oT John U iS by Kuxbiiu in hu Cwnin
tUupir, ixi<. i>c>)]. On Ihc nthci hind, Eueb. Dr £»/. r*Hi. ii. u, p. Iijl>, 1
I'TcmUcf Jind TiKherHlorf, ia noi a qiurialiun.
* tn Orifen't ftimmfitt on (b« puu^, u (iven iii the ichnlion IrnA OkIca ij
tQiMHcdbyl'uch.ulK'^Bi bulHcWnshl.
28o CRITICAL ESSAYS
this is a name given to Christ in scripture ; not one of them
expressly quotes John i. i8 with the reading hop. Heo^ or i£m£^.
dcus ; four of them do expressly quote it with the reading
iu}v. v\6q or iinig. filiiis (viz. Greg. Naz., Tit. Bostr., Vigil.,
Alcuin) ; four certainly, perhaps five, have used the phrase
but once each, in their extant writings (Bas. Sel., Arius,
Lucian, Gaudent., and perhaps Greg. Naz.) ; and two of them
have never used it at all (Tit. Bostr., Prudentius). For details,
see above, pp. 243, 244, 246 note, 266 note, 267 note.
2. Basil the Great'^^, according to the text of the Bene-
dictine edition, has '^foc once (with five MSS.) where earlier
editions read »vof, and once mentions " True Son, Onlv-
begotten God, Power of God," etc., as names given to Christ
in scripture. On the other hand, he quotes the passage
twice with the reading ii«r. In the first case (0pp. iii. 23)
the six MSS. of Garnier appear to support this reading, but
one of Matthaei's Moscow MSS. has '^/^o;. In the .second
(0pp. iii. 358), Garnier notes no variation in his ten MSS.,
and Matthaei's MS. also has ^'^k.
The imprudence of inferring the reading of John i. 18 from
the mere assertion of a Father that Christ is called or named
in scripture the Only-bej^otten God was illustrated above,
pp. 255-257. See also Theodoret, Haer. Fab. v. 2 (Opp.
i^'- 383-387, ed. Sirmond ; Migne, vol. Ixxxiii.), who says,
*' All the apostles name (!nofm;,n'at) him Genuine and True Son
of God"; and, farther on, **the divine John the Evangelist
calls (tiiUvt) the same both /ojoy rrpoanoiinv, K(u fwi'o^n'f] Ivor, Kui T('.H'
d-uiTtJi' <h/uiovi)}6i\" ^.7./. Again : ** They name (orouti^inm) him
both XiuOTOv, Kal unhor rioi\ Kal rob Tar/jof txi'mMfor." Again : *' He liaS
been named {toiotmarai) not simply /w;^>f, but ^^'V >o;f";." So
ICpiphanius (Ancor. c. 28) speaks of the F'ather as ''calling
(Ka'/orim) thc Sou (Trnh/ntorp}or/* referring to Gen. i. 26. Such
language is often used of titles which the Fathers regarded as
justified by scripture, though not expressly given. We can-
not, therefore, attach much wciirht to the evidence of the
Synod of Ancyra, or to the references of Gregory Nyssen
and Basil.
3. /^Ji7/^t7-Cacsarius (7th cent. }) is cited by Tischcn lorf.
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTrEN GOD " 28 1
as also in the Bib, Sac, for the reading viog (Dial. i. 4 ; Migne
XXviii. 864). But the context (T/Va tovtov, a?.?: y Oeov, Ka0(jc ipnaiv 6
'ludvvrfg- '0 fiov. v'wt;, 6 uv h roig Ko/.notq^ K.r.A.) SO naturally SUggCStS
the conjecture that 0^.6^ should be here substituted for t^^oc,
that I now prefer to treat the reading as doubtful. The
deity of Christ may, however, have been merely inferred
from fiwoytvi/c and <> ^v h toIc KOAiroig, as it is by Chrys. /;/ /oe.,
Greg. Naz. (Or. xxix. al. xxxv. 17), Junilius (De Part. div. Leg.
i. 16), and others. Euseb. De Eccl. Theol. i. 10, p. 68**.
There is some doubt about Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexan-
dria ; see above.
On a review of the external evidence it will be seen that
the MSS. which read ^f^i are of the highest rank, though few
in number, — weighty authorities, but not decisive ; while
the testimony of the ancient versions, and the quotations of
the passage by the Christian Fathers, decidedly favor t-ior.
We trace both readings to the second century ; but we find
'^'oc supported almost wholly by one class of authorities, the
Alexandrian or I^lgyptian ; while the witnesses for »tof are far
more widely diffused as well as far more numerous, repre-
senting all quarters of the Christian world. The whole
Western Church seems to have known no other reading.
The Syrian and Palestinian Fathers, with all the Syrian ver-
sions but the (revised }) Peshito, support it, as well as those
of Asia Minor and the Byzantines, while the Alexandrian
witnesses are divided. Though the majority of these favor
^hiiCy Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius support vik^ the
latter by repeated and unequivocal quotations. Origen's
MSS. and those of Cyril may have had both readings.
The imvibcr of Fathers that can be relied on with con-
fidence as witnesses for ^h*K is very small. Besides the
Excerpta ex Thcodoto mentioned above, there are but tivo
who have expressly quoted the passage with the reading ^m't
only, — Epiphanius and Didymus. Didymus became blind
at four or five years of age, and quotes from memory, often
making mistakes ; while Clement of Alexandria and Epipha-
nius are notorious for the looseness and inaccuracy of their
282 CRHICAL ESSAYS
citations from scripture. The uncertainty of mere allusions,
and of assertions that Christ is called n^ovoyevri^ Btdq in scripture,
has already been illustrated. It is proper to state these facts,
and to f^ive them due weight ; but in the present case I
would not lay great stress upon them, in disparagement of
the testimony for Oto^. The indisputable authorities for ^<>f
give strength to evidence which, standing alone, would be
weak.
It has been imagined that the text of the Fathers who read
(h<n: is more trustworthy than that of those who have w<if.
This point is carefully examined by Professor Drummond, who
maintains that there is not one passage in their quotations
"where any serious difficulty would be presented by the
context if v\6q were substituted for ^cof." We have already
seen the probability of corruption from marginal glosses in
two passages of Origen and Eusebius. On the other hand,
in the case of some of the more important witnesses for Bto^,
as Eusebius, Athanasius, and Chrysostom, and also of Hilary
and other Latin Fathers, the context in several places renders
the reading vldq absolutely certain. (See above, pp. 259-
261 notes, 247 note, or T/ieol Review ^ pp. 480, 482 f., 492,
488 ; also Alford's note in loc. for Hippolytus and Tertullian.)
In reasoning on this subject we must not forget that the
phrase /;oi r;; nv/r ^Vor, though " only-bcgottcu God" is strange to
us, was familiar to transcribers in the third, fourth, and fifth
centuries, and suited the prevailing taste.'
But how could the phrase o //oyo) civ/^- Wtof have become so
familiar if ^^^k was not here the primitive reading } In the
same way in which o^f(V/<5;of, "God the Son," and a little
later ^h-^TUm:^ as applied to the Virgin Mary, became current,
though not found in scripture. The appellation 0 ^fof ?.<$}of,
which so often occurs in the Fathers from Melito and Clement
of Alexandria onward, was readily formed from John i. i ;
and when vU^ was regarded as a synonym of >^}of, and imply-
ing generation from the divine substance, nothing was more
natural than the formation of such expressions as 6 //oi-oyew/f
^rfic or o //or. Otuc 76-^,oc^ iinii^enitus dens, unigenitus deus verbum^
which occur abundantly in writers who we know read only
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD " 2S3
wof OX filius in John i. i8. Though not equally suiting all
tastes, the expression was a favorite one with many among*
the Orthodox and the Arians alike, who were pleased with it
for different reasons (see above, p. 267). It was enough
that it was regarded as authorized by necessary hiference from
scripture. No quotation of John i. 18 with this reading has
been found in any Arian writer.
We are now prepared to consider the internal evidence.
It may be urged that if the original reading was ^^k, v\6<;
might be readily substituted for it, unconsciously, after
^•ojfvw, which naturally suggests it, and is connected with it
in three other passages. This is true. On the other hand,
if vi6c was the original reading, it may be said that in this
place, forming the grand conclusion of the Prologue which
began with predicating ^^k of 6 Uyo^, 0E6g would be a natural
marginal gloss, which would easily find its way into the
text.* It may also be said that the phrase 6 /lovoyevr/^ Oeog being
familiar to copyists of the third and following centuries, 6e6c
^'ould easily be unconsciously substituted for vi6<:^ especially
as the Oedv which precedes would suggest the word, and the
resemblance of yc and ec, or of -hcyioc and -ncec (»•<'"? being
often unabbreviated in the oldest MSS.), would facilitate the
change. (For the dots over the initial y a dash was often
substituted, which might, on a hasty glance, be connected
with the final oc.) Abundant illustrations of transcriptural
error originating in both the ways now supposed might be
given. For the mechanical repetition of a word suggested
by the context, see Mark iv. 21, where the absurd I'-o r},v
f^xviav in K, B*, 13, 33, 69, is due to the previous occurrence
of 'vt:6 twice in the same verse.
• "Nomini t'tof noraen i)fh^ roo*lo siibstitntum, modo adjcctum est. Utnimvis RlosNcma,
cdlato V. X, K(U Heoc ^ ^ /<5}of. suavitcr tinnicbat" (BcnKcl, J//. (>//. p. 217). In illiistra-
tioo of the fact that such a combination as imvoyFi'yc (hoc was not likely to offcml transc.ril)crs,
»nd possibly of what Tischendorf calls the " studium in summa antiquitate appcllationis tktn in
Christum cooferendae," we may note that Codex A in John xix. 40 for ro ni'.tiia rnv '\r/rfnr reads
TO aijfta rov Oeov, and that in John xviii. 32, for o /dy(tr roi' 'Ir/nov . . . artnmvutv ttok.)
'*avdT(^ iffu7^JtV amifh^Keiv, L. A. 59» 2>9. rc-'>J o /('roc rov ih ov, k.t.'/. The rcadinc of
It* Luke viii. 40, roi' drov for arroT. probably arose from a mechanical rcfx'tition of the (>\ in
ttvr&» in the MS. copied. See also the note on p. 278, above. Comp. the various readings in Rev.
n. 19.
284 CRIIICAL ESSAYS
It would seem, then, that on the supposition of the genu-
ineness of either reading we may plausibly explain the origin
of its rival. But other important considerations come in to
turn the scale. Had f^e^ been the original reading, its
uniqueness and its dogmatic significance must have forced
attention to it from the beginning, and preserved it from
change. Sanctioned by the authority of an apostle, and of
course in accordance with his oral teachings, it could not be
a stumbling-block. It would have been constantly quoted
and appealed to, like the first verses of the chapter. So
widespread a corruption as we are compelled to assume, if
vioq is not genuine, seems, under these circumstances, alto-
gether incredible ; while we can easily explain the existence
of flfoc in the comparatively few authorities that support it.
Under another aspect the internal evidence is still more
unfavorable to ^e<5f. The expression fiovoyev^ ee6g not only has
no parallel elsewhere in the New Testament, but its introduc-
tion here, after Oeov used absolutely^ produces a harshness and
confusion which it is almost impossible to suppose in any
writer ; ttof, on the other hand, seems almost required as a
counterpart to the -arpoq which follows, and also accords with
John iii. 16, 18, and i John iv. 9.
Such being the state of the case, with the highest respect
for the eminent critics who take a different view, I am con-
strained to regard both the external and the internal evi-
dence, when fairly stated and weighed, as decidedly in favor
of the reading riof.
Professor Lightfoot (as before referred to) suggests that the
reading fiovoyti'r/<: Otog in this passage may be regarded as a com-
pensation for the loss of Of6g in i Tim. iii. 16. Dr. Tregelles
(Pn'/itcd Text, etc., p. 234) appears to have viewed it in the
same light. But it may well be questioned whether, if the
genuineness of ^fo? here were demonstrated, its bearing would
be favorable to the Athanasian doctrine. Standing without
the article, in contrast with Oeov used emphatically and abso-
lutely, it would seem almost necessary to regard the word as
used in a lower sense, as Ori2:cn (/;/ J^oa?/. t. ii. §§ 2, 3, Opp.
iv. 50 ff.) and Eusebius {De EccL Thcol, ii. 14, 17) take the
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTTEX GOD " 285
predicate Oed^ in ver. i ; and we should thus have, not the
ecclesiastical doctrine of the proper deity of Christ, but a
cSpi'rr/wr Bedc, like the Logos of Philo. The ancient Arians
were very ready to call the Son « fi-i-oynn/c 0e6^ ; this appellation,
in their view, happily distinguished him from the Father,
who alone was God in the highest sense, as unbegotten,
uncaused, and without beginning.
XIV.
NOTE ON THE TEXT OF JOHN VHI. 44.
[Prepared at the request of the New Testament Company of the American Biblical
Committee.]
We are unable to accept torrfKEv, regarded as the impe
of OTT/KL), as the true reading in this passage.
1. Because there appears to be no proof of the use of an
imperfect of (tt/jku in the whole range of Greek literature.
The existence of the form nuKu, with an imperfect *Vrf/cor, in
modern Greek (Mullach, Gram, der griech. VulgarspracltCy
p. 299) does not go far toward rendering probable the use of
loTjjKnv as an imperfect in thojirst century.
2. It is certainly not found elsewhere in the Septuagint or
the New Testament. The pluperfect form of 'tartifu is always
there used, as in classical Greek, for the intransitive imper-
fect, occurring thus in the Septuagint at least thirty-three
times, and in the Xew Testament fourteen times, seven of
which are in the (lospcl of John. How great the improbability
that in the face of this usage wc should find here a needless
form, of which no other example has been produced !
3. The perfect ^'77.v^M•, in the sense of the present, is
entirely suitable to the context. The devil " standeth not
in the truth " practically, ''because truth is not in him " as a
principle of action : a regard for the truth does not belong to
his nature. The imperfect would give a less appropriate
sense : it is the permanent character of Satan, what he />,
not what he was doing, or was in the habit of doing, at som.e
past time, which gives point to the representation of him as
" the father " of the truth-rejecting Jews.
4. No one of the Greek Fathers who have cited or com-
mented on the passage a])pears to have regarded earjiKrv as an
imjKTfect. ( )rigen, /// yoau. torn. xx. § 22 (Opp. iv. 343 ss.,
ed. De la Rue), clearly takes the form as a perfect, in the
NOTE ON JOHN Vlll. 44 t&J
sense ot* the present : see p. 343*, »: >« ni f^i) ov^uc pmi. oix lommt
h- r,} aMfie.v\ p. 345', ^/iiif /liy oSv roD- rv rj) oitBtteiii wV [sO Huet,
De la Rue] imi/fn; OKovaiiai obx "I (^io'ii' ■malmp' t/i^votTet [read i/iifa:-
mnnvt:, with Huct], "l" rii nJi'Wir™ Trrpi ti<v itrn/tivai BiVSi' (v rp oi^iii
irafNovAiTrc [read TTo/i'in'iiiTnf] ; and p. 345°, "OTTfp i iii^Xof hi rj dJjj^ri'ii
imx hmiKar, 5ri wit iorn' ai.ifitia h avTif, af/ruf lal 01 tic rroTpJc roi fl«ijSti!lot itT(f
^rii.iwjfiripoi^ /oTJuairii', iri aSj^flno mV (imvi» ofrmir. So HeraclcOn,
quoted by Origen (jfbi sup.), who understands the "xx f'^i'n^ of
the tiaturf of the devil. So Cyril of Alexandria, Df Ador.
lib. vi. {0pp. I. i. 184, 185, ed. Aubert), who. after quoting
the passage, says : uii,jJ n-Ji'ro rf «ai irdn-wtJ/m/jiwiu;?. i/ujinrv^wr (.■7!;
hli/hif. So Procopius Gazaeus on Exod, viii, 43 (Migne, Pair.
Gr. IxXXVii. 556) : 'O/m -raa&Ui <i«litTai Tor iVr>a^/«<f u *u,ini. fthm-iK
yip tart, mii iv ry at-ifiilf ovx ioritut, icora r^ ru6 Zwr^pDj- jui'^. So
apparently Chrysostom, /« Ci-«. ^f/7«. vii. 2, 0pp. iv. 676*
(784), ed. Montf. : iel-imKyafiiaTivi<ulv<ii.Kai miihr^ifih ^'>iyV"n'-
'Ev j'Ufi tJ aX^if. fnaiv, oix iamiiiv • and Theophylact (w /or.) : 'a>m
(Hii ni rp liXijfldg oi';); ronitry tmiyoq, a'fj^ Tin- ffiii^im^ ior! irar^ji, So Cer-
tainly Euthymius {in loc), who explains '^•x ien/iuv by «* ;^<fKi,
ein di-QTraim-o,. Irenaeus {C(>«/. //(7fr. V. 22. § 2), according to
the Old Latin version, though that reads stetit, seems to have
taken the verb as a present in sense: " Qiwuiam diabolus
mendax est ab initio, et in veritate non sletit. Si itaque
mendax est, et non stans in veritate," etc. In the allusion
in Pseudo- Ignatius, Philad. c. 6, iln^^,n, \% taken as a present.
Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria in their comments on
the passage, and Photius {Ad Ampliil. Quaest. xlvii., Migne,
Pair. Gr. ci. 352 ff.) in his long discussion, have nothing to
the point ; Eustathius, De Engaslrim. c. 4 (Migne. xviii. 620).
But Photius {Ad Amphil. Quaest. xlvii.) does seem to ha^e
taken tornm- as present in signification ; noi r<*, fuMf^^ i>' >■« o>.iA('
i(nA.tu « r.;^ (Migne, ci. p. 356*). So Con/. Manic/i. iv. 8 (Migne,
cii. 192'); 'i Jiip lUTi ^ici-miK. *ai iniiiKaTt hv rj a^jjflfifl (oriyiK ; and
the same is true of the Fathers cited in the Catmae of
Corderius and Cramer on John, and the scholia given by
Matthaei, N. T. Gr. et Lat. iv. 368-375. They certainly
havL- nothing which suggests that tnriKiv was read as an
imperfect. Other quotations, c.^., by Clement of Alexandria^
A
288 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Strom, i. 17 (Opp. p. 369, Potter) ; Origen (Opp. ii. 126*, iv.
340'') ; Macarius Aegyptius, Horn. v. 3 ; Severianus, De Mund,
Great. Orat. vi. c. 2 (in Chrysost. Opp. vi. 497, ed. Montt) ;
and Cyril of Alexandria, Glaph. in Gen. lib. i. (Opp. i. ii. 18),
and /;/ Mich. iii. 8 (Opp. iii. 420), — throw no light on the
matter.
Augustine and other Latin Fathers explain the passage of
the fall of the devil, being influenced by the stetit of the Old
Latin version, of versions, and the Vulgate. Didymus of
Alexandria {Cont. Manich. c. 16) apparently infers the fall of
Satan from the present tarr/Kcv, which suggests to him a con-
trast with the past : Ei' 6t nai to e/rf/v, Otvc [so Basnage, Gallandi]
ioTT/KEV, dEtKvix [rcad (SttKi'iviv ?] avTuv Trporepov loT&fUvov ev tij aA^eifi, So
in his Comm. on Ps. v. 6 (Migne, xxxix. col. 1170''), which is
particularly worthy of notice. Epiphanius (Haer. xxxviii. 4,
p. 279) in a very loose quotation of the passage substitutes
the aorist i\inv?.v for iarnKrv ; and Nonnus in his poetical Para-
phrase represents the word by /"///vcr, as he does the following
«yr/v by ^/fr, referring the passage to the fall of the devil
Theodoret also (Haer. Fab. v. 8) finds this intimated : rovro 6i
"KapadjfAol ^ <jf r;/f a7iffeiac tKTpnrtlc, ravavria rtj a?.T^ein 'rpoei/.tro. But thcSC
references of the passage to the fall of Satan afford no ground
for believing that any of the writers named took earr/sfv here
for an imperfect of (tt//ku. The aorist, not the imperfect,
would have been the proper tense to describe that event.
5. The uncials B^ C, 1^, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, r, a*, n, and,
apparently, the great mass of the cursive MSS. and the
r2vangelistaries, read «'\t before tarriKcv,
But it may be said that the important MSS. which here
read ovk for "'\r, and the ancient versions which represent
(C7T]Ktv by a past tense, justify us in regarding the word as an
imperfect. The facts in regard to the versions and the
MSS. are indeed remarkable, and require explanation. Let
us see what they are.
I. The following important versions render torrjKEv here by
a past tense : the Old Latin and the Vulgate, which read
stetit ; the Memphitic, Thebaic, Gothic; the Armenian and
NOTE ON JOHN VIII. 44 289
Georgian (according to the Rev. S. C. Malan), and the
Harclean Syriac in the text^ which have a preterite tense ;
and the Jerusalem Syriac (ed. Miniscalchi Erizzo, i. 66),
which uses the imperfect. On the other hand, the Peshito
Syriac, the Harclean Syriac in the margin, the Aethiopic, and
the Slavonic have the present. (See Malan, The Gospel
accordifig to S. yohn, etc., London, 1872.) Here it is particu-
larly to be observed, that of the nine ver5ions which use a
past tense in translating only one has the imperfect. But
how can we account for the use of a past tense } The
answer is easy. It was naturally suggested by the ai-^/jwTroKrdvo^
j^v which precedes, and might also naturally be used by those
who found in the passage, like Didymus, an implication of
the fall of Satan. But if the Latin translators had taken
toTfiKev as an imperfect, they would have rendered it stabat, not
stetit ; and a similar remark applies to all the other versions
but the Jerusalem Syriac. Most modern translators, includ-
ing all the early English, have rendered the verb in the past
tense ; and this rendering has been given by a host of scholars,
from Erasmus, Beza, and Grotius down to the Rev. S. C.
Malan, who yet never dreamed of an imperfect ^orvKev. This
may serve to show the caution required in drawing inferences
from versions. It would be imprudent to infer even from
the isolated case of the Jerusalem Syriac that the translator
either regarded EorriKev as an imperfect, or read t-nrriKeL or t'ujTT/Ku.
The Peshito renders eor/fKe by the imperfect in Heb. x. 11.
2. The support of om for ohx by k, B*, D, L, X, -^, a2, i, 69**,
253, and Scrivener's i, w, P, may seem very strong in favor of
lor^Kt: as an imperfect. But may it not merely show that the
scribes of those MSS. pronounced the perfect of icrii^i incor-
rectly without the aspirate ?
There is reason for believing that there was at an early
date much confusion in regard to the use of the aspirate in
Attic Greek, not to speak of the well-known diversities in
diflferent dialects. See Franz, Elcmenta Epigr. Graecae, Berol.
1840, p. in; and especially E. A. Sophocles, Hist, of the
Greek Alphabet^ Cambridge and Boston, 1848, pp. 64, 65, and
Adolph von Schiitz, Historia Alphabcti Attici, Berol. 1875,
290 CRITICAL ESSAYS
pp. 54-58. Speaking of the period Ol. 83, 3-OI. 94, 2 (b.c.
446-403), Schiitz remarks : " Spiritus asperi usus hac omni
aetate adeo inconstans fuit ac perversus, ut h nota saepissime
aut ibi omissa sit, ubi scribenda erat, aut praescripta com-
pareat ejusmodi vocibus, quae re vera spirit u aspero carent.
Qua re apparet hunc sonum procedente tempore magis magis-
que neglectum esse, ita ut postremo omnino non audiretur,
neque quisquam in dicendo rationem ejus haberet/* He
illustrates this by more than a hundred examples from vari-
ous inscriptions, not including a long one which deserves
particular notice, though it is exceptional in the extent of its
irregularities ; namely. No. 324 (01. 93, i = b.c. 408) in
Kirchhoff' s Corpus Inscr. Atticaniviy vol. i. (Berol. 1873). In
this, according to Schiitz, out of sixty words which should
have the rough breathing, it is wanting in twenty ; while of
two hundred and fourteen which should not have it, it is pre-
fixed in one hundred and twenty-two, only ninety-two being
correctly written. And it is to be specially noted that in
this inscription, notwithstanding the fondness of the stone-
cutter for the aspirate, we have eistekota (Kirchhoff, p. 170,
frag, c, 1. 19) for ir.niKira (oil ^/ for f see Franz, p. 150), and
KATiiTAiix (Kirchhoff, p. 169, frag, a, I. 4) for Ka^hoTUoiv,
It is well known that ot-K and oix are occasionally inter-
changed in our oldest uncials. See Scrivener, Collatio Cod.
Sifiaiticiy p. Iv. no. 9, 2d cd. ; Cod. Bczac,/^. xlvii. no. ii;
Tischcndorf, Prolcgom. to LXX, pp. xxxiii., xxxiv. ; and f^'vK for
ovx in Cod. Alex. 1 Esdr. iv. 2, 12; Job xix. 16, xxxviii. 11,
26. See also Buttmann, Grain, of X. T. Greek, p. 7, Thayer's
trans. ; and Aloulton's Winer, p. 48, note 1, 2d ed.
The facts thus far stated, however, are not alone sufficient
to explain the concnrroice of so many important MSS. in the
substitution of "'^ for o/.v in the present passage. Other
points must be considered. The fact that the tenses of 'toriim
have partly the rough and partly the smooth breathing would
naturally lead to exceptional diversities of pronunciation;
the very common aorist ir-uv being pronounced without an
aspirate, there would be a tendency to treat the perfect and
the pluperfect in the same way. That this tendency really
NOTE ON JOHN VIII. 44 29 1
operated strongly, notwithstanding the counteracting influence
of the compounds avO-, a^-, fc^-, Kad-, fied-, v^ia-tifiL^ may be satisfac-
torily proved. Occasionally the tendency to assimilation would
take the other direction, and lead to the aspiration of such
forms as iorriaa and f<mrv. Of this also we find examples.*
Unfortunately there is no instance except the one before
us in the Septuagint or the New Testament in which any
aspirated form of 'iottj^ is preceded by a word like ovk or ovx^ so
that we cannot tell what phenomena would be presented by
our oldest uncials in a similar case. For the evidence of the
tendency referred to we must therefore depend upon such
information as we can obtain respecting the use of the
aspirate in the later uncials and the cursives.
The collators of MSS. have not usually noted the breath-
ings. This has been done, however, by Dr. Scrivener, in the
case of irregularities, in his Full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts y
^dded to his edition of the Codex Augiensis (1859) ; and an
examination of his collation brings to light important facts.
Scrivener cites here for the reading ovk karriKcv the MSS.
i, w, L** (/>. 69**), P. But that reading affords no evidence
that the scribes took tarnKtv for an imperfect. This appears
at once when the fact is stated, that in every one of the
instances where the forms of the perfect and pluperfect of
'lOTJiiu occur in the New Testament, some of Scrivener's MSS.,
and often more than in the present case, prefix the smooth
breathing. For example, we have Luke viii. 20, iGnjKaaiv^
i, W, P ; XXiii. 10, tiarriKELaav^ w, L, H, P ; 35, norriKU^ i, W, H, P ;
49, eioTTfKeujav, i, V, W, H, P, Z, Semcl ; John i. 26, iarijKev^ i, w, z,
•f^w. ; 35, "<^^«", i, V, w, H, P, sein. ; vii. 37, also xviii. 16 and
XX. 1 1, elarffKei, i, V, W, H, P ; ActS XXVi. 22, earr^Ka^ k, O, p ; JamCS
V. 9, earrfKev, j, k, o ; Rom. xi. 20, eartjKag^ and I Cor. vii. 27,
koTfiKsv^ k, n, o ; Heb. x. ii, eoTTjKE^ k, m, n, o ; Rev. iii. 20, koTTiKa^
c, j, k, 1, m, n ; xii. 4, hrrrjiKev^ d, g, k, 1, m, n.
In regard to the use of the breathings in the later uncials
*Codex 69 of the Gospels (Acts 31, Paul 37, Apoc. 14), collated by Scrivener (L Gosp., m Acts
ndEpp., f Apoc.), almost always aspirates tortinri\KiTi/cai\ tarii. The same is true of the
•cribe who in the tenth or eleventh century supplied Codex B with accents and breathings. Sec
the prdace of Ruenen and Cobet to their N. T. ad fid. Cod. Vat. (x86o) , p. Ixxxvii. f.
292 CRITICAL ESSAYS
we have little information, except general statements as to
their irregularity, and the evidence of this from fac-similes.
There is an exception, however, in the case of Codex F of the
Gospels, of which J. Heringa's careful collation has been
published by H. E. Vinke : Disputatio de Codice Boreeliano,
nunc Rheno-TrajectinOy etc., Traj. ad Rhen. 1843, 4^o- This
MS. reads earr/Kev, John i. 26 ; effrr/Kare^ Matt. XX. 6 ; eoTificaaaf,
Matt. xii. 47 ; earr/Kijc, John vi. 22, and earudjc^ John iii. 29 ;
effTT/Kdrciv^ Mark xi. 5 ; eoru^, John xii. 29; t(rrdi, Matt. xxiv. 15,
Mark xiii. 14; effrt^rff , -rar , -rwv, Matt. XX. 3, 6, xxvi. 73, xxvii.
47 ; ;<7r;//cf/, Matt. xiii. 2, John i. 35 ; and urrrfKtioav, Matt. xii. 46.
Thus, of the twenty-seven examples which it contains of the
perfect and pluperfect forms of kttti/u, the collator has expressly
noted seventeen in which they have the smooth breathing.
Another uncial MS. of the Gospels, Codex H at Hamburg,
has been recently examined with reference to this matter by
Dr. C. R. Gregory, of Leipzig, at the request of a member
of our Committee, with a result still more striking. Of the
thirty-one examples which it contains of the perfect and plu-
perfect forms of larr/fxt^ twcnty-cight have the smooth breath-
ing ; two, the rough ; and one is doubtful, having been altered
from one to the other. The reading in the present passage
is peculiar, — ov;(ffyrf/Kn>. Dr. Gregory has also made notes on
the cursive MS. 234 of the Gospels (Acts 57, Paul 72) at
Copenhagen. In the perfect and pluperfect forms of 'inrT/fu it
has the smooth breathing ten times, and the original smooth
has been altered to the rough six (or perhaps seven) times
besides. It may be worth while to add that in the fac-simile
of Codex 33 of the Gospels, given by Scrivener in his
IntroductioUy 2d ed., Plate xii. No. 34 (3d ed., Plate xiii. No.
39), the participle ^^^-^^c has the smooth breathing. So in the
fac-simile of Evan. 348, dated a.d. 1023, published by the
Palcrog?'. Soc. Part ix. (1879), P^- I30-
As to the reading ^^v inniKn' [sic] for "'\r '^yrriKrv in one place
in some editions of Origen and of Didymus (see above), and
in Cyril of Alexandria (iv. 563, cd. Aubert), it may be a mere
misprint ; it is so treated by the later editors of Origen
(Lommatzsch, ii. 264), Didymus (Migne, Patr. Gr, xxxix.
NOTE ON JOHN VIII. 44 293
1 105), and Cyril (Pusey, ii. icx)). If, on the other hand, it
was derived from a MS., as may be the case, though it is
nowhere so stated, we can only infer that the scribe pro-
nounced the perfect fonfKei' without the aspirate.
In view of the facts which have been presented, it appears
that the evidence for an imperfect iarfjKev in this passage,
though it may at first seem strong, breaks down at every
point ; and till some proof of the actual use of an imperfect
of ffr/>w shall be produced, we must regard its very existence
as imaginary.
XV.
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD,"
ACTS XX. 28.
[From the Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1876.*]
Common Version: **Take heed therefore unto yourselves,
and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath
made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which
he hath purchased with his own blood." Received Text:
II/w*rT/,Y''7f «'•'■' ra^Toif kui TTni'Ti rt^ Troiuviu, ir u iftag To TVEifua ru a'^urv iBero
izftTKo'iinir, Trotuali'ttv t//v tKK/T/ainv rov dtai\ f/v TTFptFTrotr/ffnTO Ata Tov M/oi* aifiaro^.
Various readings: «»•', "therefore," is bracketed by Lach-
mann, and omitted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Green {Two-
fold Nezo Jest.), and Westcott and Hort, but is retained by
Alford and Wordsworth. T^or rov f^eoi-, " God," Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Green read rniKvpiur^ "the Lord";
Alford, Wordsworth, and Westcott and Hort retain ''for. But
Tregelles places f^for in the margin with a mark of interroga-
tion, implying some doubt whether it should not be regarded
as an alternative reading ; and Alford, on the other hand,
puts KViuw in the margin, in large type, as of nearly equal
authority with ^^"'•. All the editions named above read in
the last clause '^'<' ~(*'v (n/inrt)^ rov nSIm^ for (ha rov 'tdiov aittaro^.
Oi those who have written treatises on the textual criticism
of the New Testament, Porter, Davidson, and Hammond
give the preference to ^^y)/or ; Scrivener and Milligan defend
(hor. Among recent commentators and translators, ^k>i' is pre-
ferred by Dr. Gloag ; on the other hand, Meyer. Ewald,
Lechler (in Lange's Bibclwerk) very confidently, Overbeck,
])r. David Hrown (with hesitation), Holtzmann (in Bunsen's
BihcluH'rk)y the new Dutch translation (1868), and Weiz.sacker
adopt the readin^^ Kjyj/or.
♦ (The substance of this nrtii Ir wns nriKin:illy pro|)nrcd at the request of the New Testament
Company of the American Hiblical Revisii>n Cominiltec.J
ON THK RKADINC " I.HfRi:H OF GOD "
295
To recount the opinions of the earlier critics, or to give a
sketch of the literature of the subject, would carry us too
far. But as a mistake made by one scholar often leads many
astray, it may be well to say that Matthaei does not read B""',
as stated by De Wette, Davidson, and Alford, but a'piuv koI Omi;
in both of his editions ; that Gratz does not reject nipioi', as is
affirmed by BloomficM (9th ed.}, but adopts It; and that
although Michaclis defends &""• in his Introduction to the Ni-'m
Testament (4th ed., 1788), in a later work (Anmerkungen sh
seiner Uebers. d. N. 7'., 1 790, ii. 407 ff.) he gives the preference
to Kvpiov as the best supported reading.
The passage presents one of the most interesting and
important problems in the textual criticism of the New Tes-
tament ; but no thorough investigation of the evidence for
the different readings has been published, so far as I am
aware, since the time of Wetstcin. The recent accession of
the Sinaitic MS, to the authorities for 6tni may be thought by
some to turn the scale in its favor; and the fact that this
reading is received into the text by scholars so eminent as
Professor Westcott and Dr. Hort might alone justify a new
discussion of the question, if any excuse were needed.
In stating the evidtnce for the different readings, we may
begin with
1. THE ALITI lOKITI HS KOK K.mor.
Manuscripts.-
-A,C',
1 and Led. ^ ;
xi' xioixii' xu" XI ■ xiV xil' xii'
all, four uncials and sixteen cursives,* As to date, two are
supposed to be of the fifth century, two of the sixth, one of
the tenth or eleventh, five of the eleventh, one of the eleventh
or twelfth, four of the twelfth, four of the thirteenth, and one
MS.(Ne
* Coll. Ojfonl, jB)
puM
A^
by CraiMi w<ih ■»
am' ", bill duct »
mth No.
j6. WaomMHC
H ,
Lond iBb.. p. ,M
uaddlo
ihcfvidcncerDrn,.
\«m
.ndScr,MS.S.'' i
njrt-m-, B-an.
l<n
Kcrf
•ichii/
...«hH«l..p.,-«(. M
A<^u; a— In Ihe lut sbsvc it
u.«l.
juwn
uiBioTthcAcu]
296 CRITICAL ESSAYS
of the fourteenth. Here the high character of the cursives
which read Kvpiw is particularly to be remarked. Eight of
them, Nos. 13, 36, 40, 69, 73, 81, 95, and 180, are marked by
Tischendorf with an asterisk in the Prolegomena to his
seventh critical edition as noticeable for their agreement with
the text of the most ancient copies ; and there are three
others at least, namely, Nos. 15, 18, and a"*, which deserve
to be so marked. The first in the list, No. 13 (33 Gosp., 17
Pauline Epist.), is said by Eichhorn to be "full of the most
excellent and oldest readings." He styles it "the Queen of
the cursive manuscripts." No. 40 Tischendorf designates
as "codex admodum insignis;" it represents the text of
Euthalius. No. 73 is called by Griesbach "praestantissimus;"
"optimis adnumerare non dubito," says Birch {Variae LecL
1798, p. ix.). No. 180 is justly spoken of by Scrivener as
"important." Finally, Scrivener's "a" represents, according
to him, "a very interesting and valuable text, . . . being found
in harmony . . . with the most ancient MSS., and very con-
spicuously with that most precious document designated . . .
as p" (now 61, formerly Tischendorf's "lo""). ijntrod, to
Cod, AugicnsiSy p. Ivi.) The excellence of most of the cur-
sives that support ^^•p/or, in contrast with the inferior character
of those which read (hoi, is an important point, and will be
illustrated hereafter.
Ancient Versions. — The Old Latin (second century), as
shown by the quotations in all the earlier Latin Fathers (see
below), confirmed more or less by the Latin interpreter of
Irenaeus, and the Gracco-Latin MSS. D and E;* the Mem-
phitic or Coptic (third century, or perhaps the second), the
Thebaic or Sahidic (same date), the Armenian (fifth century),
and the Harclean or Philoxenian Syriac (a.d. 616) in the
tu.irgifi, representing an Alexandrian MS. " very accurate
and approved," according to Thomas of Harkel, and which
certainly exhibits an early form of the text, though, like D,
disfigured by interpolations.
* Domiui is also the reading of the Cigas Lihrorum, published by Bclsheim, Christumia, 1879,
the only MS. of the Old Latin rontaiuing the Acts complete.
I
I
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD" 197
Fathers. — Irenaeus (cir. a.d. iSo), Cottt. Haer. iii, 14. § 2,
in a very early Lalin version (already used, it is thought, by
Tertullian) : Atiendite igitiir el vodis et omni gregi in quo vos
Sfiiritus sanctus praeposuil episcopos, regere ecclesiam Domini,
quam sibi comtituit per sangmncm suHtn. This is the more
important, as it is part of a quotation embracing six verses
(v. 25—30), and therefore probably not made from memory.
I know of no particular reason for doubting that this version
represents the Greek of Irenaeus ; certainly there is nothing
in the context {pace Mr. Nolan) to suggest such a doubt ; and
we may at any rate say with Lachmann, "licet aliquando non
Irenaeum sed Latinos novi testament! codices secutus sit
[Latinus inlerpres], eos cum Irenaei libris in plerisquc omni-
bus consensisse multis documentis cognoscitur" (..V. T. torn,
i. p. X.). But if it be assumed, without proof, that the trans-
lator here followed the Old Latin version instead of Irenaeus,
we have at all events a testimony for w;pfot' which reaches back
to the second century.
Apostolical Constitutions (third or fourth century?), ii. 61,
§ 4, an allusion rather than a quotation, and from which,
though it favors kvi^ov, we cannot draw any confident infer-
ence ; ffinTp^Jtrr t\% rt/v iii*),iieiav Tnii wvpiov, l/v irrtunrod/aarn ry liifiafi rou
XpiOToi Toir tiyajnifiiroK, roi npunrtUuv irdoiw UTiarui. Here, according tO
Lagarde, Codices x, y, z, of the fourteenth and sixteenth cen-
turies, but of different families, with the edition of Turrianus,
which he follows, read •1/1™, while Codex w (a.d. nil) has
fcoJi, Compare the allusion vii. 26. § r ; viii. 13. § 18. I do
not include ii. 57. § 13; viii. 11. g 3, 41. § 4; see 1 Pel. i.
18, ig. The compiler of the Apostolical Constitutions, if he
refers to Acts xx. 28, may possibly, though not very probably,
have interpreted the ^la mii ai/uirof nw itinv a.s equivalent to •''« r.
ui/i. r. lAoi. uiof-, as is done by Erasmus {Paraphr), Limborch
(though he prefers the reading «"p™), John Milton, Lenfant
and Beausobre, Docderlein, Van der Palm (note in his Dutch
trans.), Granville Penn, and Mr. Darby. But if he read s™'
in the Acts, he would hardly have substituted the unusual
expression, "the church of the Lord." which occurs else-
where, I believe, but twice in the Constitutions (ii. 2a § 9,
298 CRITICAL ESSAVS
43- § 4)» for his familiar phrase, " church of God," which he
uses at least sixteen or eighteen times.
Athanasius (fl. a.d. 328, d. 373), in Ep, i. ad Scrap, c. 6, as
edited, reads (huv\ but Cod. Reg. i, of the tenth or eleventh
century, and "egregiae notae" according to Montfaucon, has
Kiy)V»r, and three other good MSS. xp^^rov. (Athan. Opp. i.
^53^ ed. Bened., or ii. 544** in Migne*s Patrol, xxvi.) That
the true text of Athanasius here is either /cvp/ou or xp^frrov is
made almost certain, I think, not only by the passage cited
by Tischendorf from his treatise against Apollinaris, but by
many other passages in the same work. See below. Supple-
mentary Note A, p. 325 ff.
Didymus of Alexandria (a.d. 309-395), De Trin, ii. 8. § 2
(Opp. col. 621^ in Migne's Patrol, xxxix.), quotes the passage
ii/KWTtvi'c'c • • • '^"* '"^' «'^'«»' diuaro^^ with the reading Ktfpiw, So also
in his treatise Dc Spiritn SanctOy c. 24 (Opp. col. 1054*), as
preserved in the Latin tran.slation by Jerome. In a reference
to the passage in Cramer's Catena (p. 337), he uses the
expression ''v ^ot/ni>iif) b iTFpie7roif/aaTo 6 auTt/p rc^ tdiif) alfian,
Chrysostom (a.d. 347-407) quotes the passage with the
reading k'vIov in //om. xi. /// Jtp, ad Eph, (on Eph. iv. 12, Opp.
xi. 83' (95), ed. Montf.). Here the MSS. of Savile, Mont-
faucon, and Field present no variation, and Matthaei's MS.
of Chrysostom confirms the reading (see his N, T, Gr, ct Lat.
viii. 92, note on ICph. iv. 9). That Chrysostom's text in his
Comm. on the Acts,* as edited by Montfaucon, which reads
^toi- twice (Opp. ix. 333 (372)), has been corrupted, as often
elsewhere (sec Tregelles, Textual Criticism, p. 335), is proved,
I think, by five distinct considerations : {a) By the context,
as Mill perceived, // /^ <> (Uauorf/g iTtp ryg tKKAT/aiag ov6e tov al/iaroi
t^iinuTo rui' Hirrov, k.t.'/., though this alouc might not be decisive.
(/?) By the extract in Cramer's Catena on the passage (pp. 336,
337), shown to belong to Chrysostom instead of Ammonius,
not only by its contents, but, what has not been noticed,
* That fhor stands in the text prefixed to the comment is hardly worthy of notice, as editors
and transcrilxirs vcn' often in such cases conformed the text to that of the copies with which they
were familiar. Sec Wctstcin's .V. T. ii. 8(7; also, TischcndorTs notes on Acts xi. ao, p. 97, and
I Cor. vii. 5, p. 489, bottom.
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD
tnURC
^
expressly ascribed to Chrysoslom (t™ xpimari^av instead of
TowaJmn) in the PaHs MS. of this catena (Cod. Coislin. xxv.,
i>. No. IS of the Acts), which is much older and better than
the Oxford MS. (see Cramer, p. 446, and his Preface, p. iv.).
This catena reads twice, in both MSS., niu/iah'Kv r. «. n^ siv.ion
where Montfaucon has"."i\* (r) By the anonymous commen-
tary on the Acts published by Finetti with the works of
Thco|)hylact. from a MS, in the Medicean Library at P'lor-
cnce, and which here, as often elsewhere, abridges Chrysos-
tom. This reads 'Owrl ^°P° ™'' ir'-rl'I'aTo^ Ix""' t^b ^fiporiw/ai'. TToi/ati-
itw Tip: fiwAijtriov roi' KVplav. '\fini> Koi 3/Ji? avayaf rou Kiipiov iarlv !/
IvJu^ia. (Tkeophylacti 0pp., ed. De'Rossi and Finetti, iii.
620', or iii. II 15° in Migne's Patrol, cxxv.) (^d) It has not
been observed that this reading of Chrysostoni in the catena
is further confirmed in part by one or more of Savile's MSS.
In his edition of Chrysostom (vol. iv. p. 855), for the text of
Montfaucon, ri-n, vmimivHV n,v h. nr Orot; Ho'v ml SnTfpa [ac. awi^^^'] ■
he gives the various reading, "iiWiMidWi?, rot xtip/ownn-inj /«Ai«n'o.f
(f) Adding to these considerations the fact that Chrysostom
on Eph. iv. 12 unquestionably reads wpon, we cannot reason-
ably hesitate, I think, to regard the catena as preserving the
true reading here. If Dr. Tregelles is right {Printed Text,
p. 232) in regarding the Homilies on the Acts as not really
Chrysostom's, this last argument falls away : but the others
appear to be decisive, and we have then two authorities for
tvpim instead of one. J
>l«, ud pTciaec, pp. v:
•So Che besi MSS. of Chiymiom ii. /or., In it
accoidingly adoplcd by ihe tFdn»Lilors[>rChrywi1i>m'&
ol the Fuhcn. Se« Pui 11. (OifDrd, iSji), p, j^j,
UhUSS.
the true rsHliog of ChiyMHUHD. Id hit Him. iv, (aL iiv.) in Jtait. (on John i. i9, Opp. vUi.
S6 t»). cd. Uonlf.). ttaE prinled ediDou rod: E( &i otMxf^ ^1. Bill! l^-tptJOli tV
aapti, fii/ Sav/iAogf ■ iiri 1/ ^mipuaif ilia r^r ini/ndr, «. T. i. Bui htii S«vile iCbij''
Opp, li. 61J, 1. =7) gim ihe Y«riou> iraJijig, Ara Taiir6 ^r/viv. If ftnvtpiillr/ iv napiii, i yap
^vtauei^. c. T. y. Thu i> raafintiHl by the Lodo miulaiioa of Chryvntom's Htunilia on
John nude in the iifteiath nnlury by FisnceMO Accolliof Areno (Fnncucus Anluiiit}. which
foAt: " Proplerca uiquil. Qui mani/titnlHt txt /h enrit*," vxz.
CTimer'i cAEen* on 1 Tim. ui. t6 likewise pretervet ihe genuine tut of Chrytovtoni iq c^po-
lilJHi tD Ihe lut of Monifaucon, and i> here eonlitiaed by an Old Luin Tenion aS Ihii Fitbet, u
t« Rinsulwd by Dt. W. U. Ward, in hit valuable utiiJi on ihii puafe in the BiilMhtiM Smrr*
fo.J«.
JThe (nmlatm orOirynHtnm'i Horn
HI Iht Atk, in the < Ixfonl Libiaiy of Ihe Fuhen,
300 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Euthalius (5th century). See p. 296.
Pseudo-Cyril (sth century ?), De saiictA et vivif. Trin, c. 26,
published by Cardinal Mai as Cyril's, but regarded by
Dr. Tregelles [Account of Printed Text, p. 232, note f), to
whose judgment I defer, as belonging to a later author: Tipoo-
f^rri: . . , Kvpiov , , . dia tov cufiaroq tov IdioiK {CyrilH Opp. viil. 1 185^
in Migne Ixxv.)
Constantine VI. and Irene, Letter to Pope Hadrian I.
{Divalis sacra ad Hadrian, papam) at the time of the second
Nicene Council (a.d. ySy) : " Et iterum divinus . . . apostolus
... sic mandavit : Pascitc grcgcm Domini cum disciplina,
quam acquisivit proprio sanguined {Conciliay ed. Coleti, viil
677^ 678\)
Theodorus Studita (a.d. 759-826), Epist, lib. ii. ep. 56:
ofHJv ovTu Kiv^wevovaav Ttjv enK/jfaiav^ f^v TrepiETroif/iJaro Kvpiog dta tov oiKeiov atfiarog.
(In Sinnondi Opp, Var v. 379^ or Migne xcix. I269^)
Antonius, compiler of Melissa* (8th century.^ 12th cen-
tury .^), in " Loci communes Sententiarum . . . collecti per
Antonium et Maximum monachos," etc., Genev. 1609 (ap-
pended to Stobaeus), Scnn, clxxiii. p. 286 : Upookx^^ - - • «v»<<w
. . ', ihii T. irT. aijiaTog.
have shown that the text of these Homilies, as it appears in modern editions (as those of Com-
melin, Savile, Morel [which commonly goes under the name of Fronto Ducaciis), and the
IJencdiciines [''here not Montfaucon "]), is founded on MSS. (particularly the Paris MS. No.
cent. X. \
729 ... - . , which represent a corrupt recension of the text, in opposition to the Paris
u (E of Oxf. trans.) / "^ ^ *^*^
MSS, No. 725' ', 726 ', 727 ', and a copy in the Library of New College, Oxford, which con-
A u c
tain the old text. conHrmed by the Catena of Andreas the presbyter (not later than the tenth cen-
tury, for tlic MS. is of that age), Occumcnius, Theophylact, and the scholia in MSS. of the Act«;.
Savile has corrected words and phrases here and there from the New^ College M.S. The P.iris
MS.'^. 728 and 73 suppl. " exhibit a text compiled from old and new, and with alterations peculi ir
to itself. Of the six Parisian MSS. a full collation w.is made for ' the Library of the Fathers';
of N, we hu\c at present but a partial collation."
They have acconlinyly translated fmm this older text. (.See Preface to the Homilies on the
Acts, P.irt IL, Oxford, 1852, pp. vi.-x.)
I quote from their transl.uion, p. 595: —
" /« ivhich the Holy ti/tpst hath made ycu oi'erseerst to feed the Church of God. See, it
is from the Spirit ye have your ordination. This is one constraint: [then] he says, To feed the
Church of the Lord.^ \xi\ another obligation : the Church is the Ix>rd's. And a third: which
he hath purchased with his own blood."
* C.wc and many others call him Antonius Melissa. But this seems to be an error. Melissa
was the title of his compilation.
" y Hence it appears that St. Chr>'s. reads \\vpntv not (^fv/f in this text, though in the citation
the scribes give it according to the other reading, (rhor.'
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD*' 3OI
But this is not all. The quotations given by Wetstein
(iV. 7". ii. 597, 598), to which I must content myself with
referring for want of space, from Origen (a.d. 230),* Gregory
of Nyssa (a.d. 370), Isidore of Pelusium (a.d. 412), Eutherius
(not "Eucherius") of Tyana (a.d. 419), Theodoret (a.d. 423),
see especially his Third Dialogue, Nestorius (a.d. 428),
and Joannes Maxentius (a.d. 520), — seem altogether incon-
sistent with the supposition that they could have regarded
" the blood of God " as a Scriptural expression. We may
with great probability consider these writers as supporting
the reading Kvphv, or possibly in some cases (as in that of
Theodoret), xp^^ov. To these I would add Eustathius of
Antioch (fl. a.d. 325), who maintains that he has shown
ttza^eg t6 Seiov tov xpi<^"^ 'xvevfw. (see the passagcs preserved by
Theodoret in Migne's Patrol, xviii. 681) ; who affirms, as
quoted by Gelasius, "vesaniunt et bacchantur et furiunt et
insaniunt et suis mentibus excesserunt, qui Deo Verbo passi-
onem applicare praesumunt " (Migne, xviii. 694) ; who says,
as quoted in Syriac by Sabarjesus (Assemani, Bibl. Orient.
III. i. 542), ** Si quis dixerit Deum Verbum quascumque cre-
aturarum passiones passum fuisse, maledictus esto in caelo et
in terra," and who, like Theodoret, in discussing this ques-
tion, meets the argument of his adversaries founded on i Cor.
ii. 8 (see Migne, xviii. 681'), but seems never to have heard
of an argument from Acts xx. 28. Sabarjesus (ibid) also
quotes " Gregory " (" perhaps Thaumaturgus," says Asse-
mani) as saying, " Stultus est et insipiens qui affirmat Deum
Verbum cum suo templo passiones tulisse." Gregory of
Nazianzus (fl. a.d. 370) is shocked at the idea that our Saviour
*The passages of Origen cited by Wetstein are Cont. Cels. ii. 36 (h.irdly relevant) and vii.
16 (see cc. 13-17), 0pp. i. 416, 705, ed. De la Rue. To these may be added Comm. in Joafi.
t. xxviii. c. 14, (WK fiTf^fiai'ev 6 #euf /6}oc, a. r. >. ; i- xxxii. c. 17. 0pp. iv. 392»le, 446b; and
especially Comm. in Afatt. t. xvi. c. 8 ad fin., Opp. iii. 726, 727. " The gcnlhead of Clirist," as
Redepenning remarks, *' Origen everywhere taught had no share in his suffering " {Ort'^cnfs, ii.
410, n. 7). The expression " Deum crucifixcrunt," which Dr. Burton ascril>cs to Origen ( Testim.
of iht Anie-Nicent Fathers to the Div. 0/ Christ , pp. 223, 312), re«;ts only on the notoriously
untrustworthy authority of the Latin translation of Riifinus. (Oriccn, Opp- ii. 676b.) The
reader of Dr. Burton's book needs also to be warned that the comments ascribed to Origen in
Catenae arc often of very doubtful genuineness. See the Preface to vol. ii. of De la Rue's
edition.
302 CRITICAL ESSAYS
ry i(J/> avTov 0e6rirri nddo^ Ai^aaOai {Epist, CCiii. ad Nectafium / 0pp.
iii. 333*, in Migne xxxvii.). Amphilochius of Iconium (fl.
A.D. 370) also says : Ei //tv wv ^e<Jr;/f liraBtv, f/rraf rd ^Ao^iaov (MignC,
Patrol. Gr, xxxix. lOO**), with much more of the same sort
(Migne, xxxix. 104s 108*, 113***; and Sabarjesus in Assemani,
as above).
We may notice here some misleading references : Eusebius,
Comm. in Isa. xxxv. 9, 10 (0pp. vi. 34iS in Migne xxiv.),
cited by Wetstein and many others, seems to me to prove
nothing. The rf*a Kvpiov belongs to Isaiah ; and the oi^ alrhq
Atf/jov^Ti e/.vTp6aaTo rtft iditf) aifiari may as well refer to I Pet. i. 18, 19,
and Eph. i. 7, as to Acts xx. 28. Equally inconclusive is the
passage referred to in the Epistle of Maximus to Nicander :
Ka6o7Majv SKK/jfaiai; Kal rov ravrrfv AC difiautq oIkeuw ko) l^cx)Koim> Kara di/.rfotv
QfmitadfjLEvov Kvfitov (0pp. cd. Combcfis, ii. 47, or Migne, xci. 92*).
The Epistle of Ibas to Maris or Mares (not " Marinus ") has
been cited on both sides without reason. In the passage
referred to, the Greek text or version reads "God," while
three independent Latin versions have " Lord " ; but the
passage is not a quotation, and it may be doubted whether it
contains even an allusion to Acts xx. 28. See Conciliay ed.
Coleti, iv. I577^ 1578^ vi. 132''; and the translation of
Facundus Hermianensis, Pro Dcf. trium Capitnlornmy lib. vi.
c. 3 (Mi^ne, Ixvii. 665").
We come now to the Latin Fathers. Their quotations
arc of interest only as serving to determine the reading of
the Old Latin version.
Lucifer of Cagliari (fl. a.d. 354, d. 371), De non parcendo in
Dcnm dcliuquciitihus (Migne, xiii. 997*) : Attcndite . . . regere
ccclcsiain Domini . . . sanguine suo.
The author of Quacst. Vet. et Xov. Test, (a.d. 370), Q. 97:
Attcndite . . . regere eeclesiani Domini yesn (Migne, xxxv.
2296). This is ascribed to Hilary the Deacon by Cave and
many others, and was written, as Cave remarks, about a.d.
370 (see Quaest. 44). It was formerly attributed to Augustine,
and appears in many editions of his works.
Jerome {cir. a.d. 345-420), Epist. 146 (cil. 85) ad Evangelum
(al. Evagriinn) : Attendite . . . ut rcgeretis eccles. Domini . . .
ON THE READING " CHURCH OF GOD " 3O3
sanguine sua. (0pp. i. 1193 ; Migne, xxii.) So in his Comtn.
in Ep, ad Tit, i. 5 (0pp. vii. 563 ; Migne, xxvi.) : Attendite
. . . pascere eccles. Domini . . . per sanguinem suum. That
Jerome's text is here faithfully preserved is evinced by the
fact that the passage is cited in precisely the same words by
Sedulius Scotus (8th or 9th century) in his Collect, in Ep. ad
Titunt (Migne, ciii. 243**), who is here borrowing from Jerome ;
and by Amalarius of Metz (9th century), De Eccles, Offic. ii.
13 (Migne, cv. 1089), who expressly quotes from Jerome.
Ambrose of Milan (a.d. 340-397), De Spir. Sancto, ii. 13.
§ 152 (Opp, ii. 663, ed. Bened., or Migne, xvi. 775**) : Atten-
dite . . . regere eccles. Dei, as edited. But it has not been
observed that the Benedictine editors in their appendix of
"Variae lectiones inter omissas non contcmnendae " inform
us, " Quidam mss., regere ecclesiam Domini'' Now when we
consider that this reading is supported by the other authori-
ties for the Old Latin version, and that the tendency of
transcribers would be to conform their text to that of the
Vulgate rather than the reverse, it seems very probable that
these MSS. represent the true reading of Ambrose. That
he did not read Dei here is confirmed by various passages
of his writings: e.g. De Incam. c. vi. §52: "cum utique
Scripturae dicant quia Christus secundum carnem passus est,
non secundum divinitatem " ; comp. c. v. §§ 37, 40 ; De Fide,
ii- c. 7, §§ 56-58 ; c. 8, § 65 ; and v. c. 8, § 106, "quod crea-
tura omnis sine passione aliqua divinitatis Dominici sanguinis
redimenda sit pretio."
Arator (a.d. 544) in his poetical Paraphrase of the Acts,
lib. ii. lines 850-853 (Migne, Ixviii. 221*"), favors the reading
Domini ox Christi : " — Servatc, ministri, | Ecclesiam Christi
\al. Christus] pretium quam sanguine nobis | Fecit in orbe
suo ; famuli retinere laborent | Quae Dominus de morte dedit."
I do not know for what reason Wetstein, Gricsbach, Scholz,
and others cite this work under the name of Alcimus.
The collection of Scripture passages called the Specnlumy
ascribed on very sRght evidence, and against strong pre-
sumptions, to Augustine, but at any rate a sort of authority
for the Old Latin version, quotes the passage thus : " Atten-
304 CRITICAL ESSAYS
dite . . . universe gregi, in quo sanctus Spiritus conlocavit
vos esse episcopos, ad pascendam ecclesiam Jesu Christi."
{Spec. c. 3 ; Mai, Nov. Pair. Bibl. i. ii. p. 10.) The Speculum
often quotes very loosely ; but it will be admitted, I think,
that in a loose quotation yesu Christi would be more natu-
rally substituted for Domini than for Dei*
The argument from silence must be used with caution ;
but considering the nature of the writings of Tertullian,
Cyprian (see especially his Testiin. ii. 6), and Novatian {De
Regtila Fidei sive de Trinitate), it seems almost incredible
that they should not have cited this passage if they had the
reading Dei ; and I think we may reasonably regard them as
decidedly confirming Domini as the reading of the Old Latin
version.
We see thus, if I mistake not, that all the authorities for
the reading of the Old Latin version whose testimony is of
any weight favor the reading "Lord." The only apparent
exception is Primasius, who is too late to be of any impor-
tance, flourishing in the middle of the sixth century, and
who, though preserving some readings of the Old Latin, is
so poor an authority that Dr. Tregelles remarks in his Book
of Revelation in Grceky etc. (London, 1844), p. xxvii., note f,
'* I have purposely omitted the readings of the ancient Latin
version cited by Sabaticr out of Primasius ; many of the
readings so cited are undoubtedly really ancient, but many of
them have been iiidnbitahly modernized, — perhaps by tran-
scribers and editors."!
♦C.irclinal Mai .issiijns the .M'^. of the Spt'culmn (designated by Tischendorf as " m ") to the
5>ixth or seventh ccntiir>'. Ikring of inturt.->t as perhaps the oldest copy that contains the famous
passage i John v. 7 (it h.u> als j the spurious Epistle to the Laodiccans), it may be well to note
that Rcifferschcid, a much better authority a> I supix-»sc, dalCN it as *' Saec. viii.-ix." {Die
ri^mischeti Bibliothekfn^ in the Sitzungsherichtc J. pkil.-hist. CI. J. kat's. Akad. d. Wiss. zu
WUtty Bd. i. 1865, p. 753.) Hartel agrees with him (IVcf. to his edition of Cyprian, p. xxv. : see
also p. 34). [On this note compare the *' Postscript," p. 330 f.]
\ A more careful investigatitm shows that Primxsius is an important authority for the Old
Latin m the Apocalypse, but that in other btxj'cs of the N. T. he follows the Vulgate. — We may
here aj;ain note some irrelevant reference^: The .Acts of the Council of Carthage (a.d. 258 or 256),
Sfftt. 79 (al. 80), merely use the txprcssion "ecclesiam Domini gubcrnantes," or in the Greeki
-/);• Ikk'/.. ftenv KV.it III ('.)iTfr. iConciiia, ed. Colcti, i. 8i5<', 836'1«\) Auj»ustine, Con/. Parmen.
i. 1? 'al. 7, al. 6), cited by Wetstcin and manv other*, •^im-'ly has " ille Dominus noster qui emit
fotu:u inundum pretio sanguinis sui." (Aug. 0pp. ix. i. 7ih, ed. Par. alt. 1837.)
ON THE READING " CHURCH OF GOD " 305
We now proceed to
II. THE AUTHORITIES FOR THE READING Oeov.
\f A VTTC/^DIDTC fc» R *_ —^- ^3 »5 37 46 65
IVlA.NUbCKll'lb. K, D, xv' Xll' XI or XII* ad. 1087* XIII* Xl' Xlll'
66* /)\ 68 84 3j 154 1^2 Lect. 12 ^ •/ -. " u ^
xn (•)' xn* xTT;^^: T^* xV* x-v* -7^ > ^nd ex silcntio, "on
which," as Scrivener remarks, "one can lay but little stress,"
* ; in all, two uncials and fourteen
7
13
16
39
56
64
c*'
C"
X*
XI'
X'
7*
xn*
XII*
xv'
XIV
cursives, with eight in which the reading is merely inferred
from the silence of collators. As to date, passing over the
silent witnesses, we have two of the fourth century (middle),
one of the tenth, four of the eleventh, one of the eleventh or
twelfth, three of the twelfth, two of the thirteenth, and three
of the fifteenth. Of this whole number, Tischendorf marks
three only with an asterisk as noticeable for their frequent
agreement with the oldest MSS. : No. 25, of which Griesbach
says, ** melioribus, nee tamen optimis, accensendus est " ;
No. 68, of which he says, " interdum quidem cum optimis
libris consentit " ; and Lect. 12, of which Scrivener remarks,
"it contains many valuable readings (akin to those of Codd.
A, D, E) but numerous errors." We ought also, I think, to
add c*", though its reading is only inferred ex silcntioy as it
appears to be well collated. Of this Scrivener says, "it is
one of our best authorities, being full of weighty and probable
variations from the common herd." With these exceptions,
the cursives that support ^rov are of a very inferior character
(see the special examination in Griesbach's note) ; and, as a
whole, they are not to be compared in value with those that
read wp/ov. This will be illustrated in the proper place.
Ancient Versions. — The Peshito Syriac (4th century,
in its present form }) in Lee's edition, and in eight MSS.,
including four very ancient, in another as a late correction,
and another in the margin (see Supplementary Note B) ; the
Vulgate (fir, a.d. 385) ; and the Harclean or Philoxenian
Syriac in the text (a.d. 508, rev. 616). The Aethiopic of the
Polyglot has a word which may represent /cip/of or ^for, but I
* [Tbeie last two MSS. are now numbered by Dr. Scrivener 184 and 186 respectively: see his
IntrvdmctiOMt etc, 3d ed., p. a6o.]
306 CRITICAL ESSAYS
think favors t^eov ; * on the other hand, Piatt's edition, with
most of the MSS., supports the reading xpt^ov. (See Supple-
mentary Note B, p. 329 below.)
Fathers. — Athanasius, Ep. i. ad Serap, c. 6, as edited,
reads ^fw ; but the MSS. vary. See above, under I. p. 298.
Epiphanius (fl. a.d. 368), Hacr. Ixxiv.c. 6, transferred from
the AncoratHS^ c. 69 : lipoGkx^rt (+ Ak Anc.) . . . £v<^ ed v^a^ {ifi, le
Anc) . . . T^oLfi. vfiiiq {Afic. om. iv) . . . r. kuKA. r. iiEni). Not quoted
in proof of the deity of Christ, but of the Holy Spirit.f
Basil the Great (fl. a.d. 370), Moral, Ixxx. c. 16 (0pp. ii.
316 (442), ed. Bened.) : upoakx^re ovv . . . noifi. T. EKKA. Tov dew. Not
quoted for any dogmatic purpose. [Compare p. 310 n.f]
Cyril of Alexandria (fl. a.d. 412, d. 444), Quod B. Maria
sit deipara, c. 22 (0pp. ix. 28 1^ ed. Migne; in his Patrol.
Ixxvi.) : i\pocix^^ y^p • • • ^^^ . . . <Jm r. aifi. r. idiov. Here the word
ffeov is repeated and commented on. This is the earliest and
the ofi/y example which I find in the Greek Fathers of the
quotation of this passage in reference to the deity of Christ.
Pseud- Athanasius (uncert.), Testim. ex S. Script, c. 3 (Opp.
ii. 4*, ed. Montf. ; Migne, xxvii.) : trpooix^^ • • • ^wfievU^ [sic] . . .
iv <!} vfi. ideTo . . . TTotfi. r. Uka. t. Oefw. Quotcd in proof of the deity
of the Spirit.
Antiochus the Monk (fl. a.d. 614), Horn. Ixi. : Ufxxjixf're . . .
(frrm/coToif om.) . . . -^otfi. r. ckk/.. r. (kov. (Migne, Ixxxix. iGiT*.)
Again, Hovi, cxxii. : rrfKKjex^T^ • '^^f'l' . . . fita r. 16. aifiaroc. (Mignc,
tdid, 181 2^) In both places, quoted for no dogmatic
purpose.
Pseudo-Chrysostom (uncert.), Dc S. Joan. Apost. Scrtn.
(Chrys. Opp. viii. pars ii. 135 (785), ed. Montf.) : wf <o^ o a>-/f>f
nar/t)c: x^oinavari r. lkk/.. tov Oeav, Montfaucou remarks, "Jure
* The word egziabhcr is apparently used for Kifitur only when the translator regarded kvoio^
as equivalent to Jehovah. To take the examples in the pre:»ent chapter: in ver. 19 it represents
KVftioq, in w. 21, 24, 25, 27, 33, tt, t,r ; but it does not stand for ki fuoc; in the phrase d KVpto^
'I^cubc; vv. 21, 24, 35. Sec Dillmann's Lex. Ling. Aeth.^ col. 1192. [Compare p. 330, note*.]
t I venture to suggest here a small, but not unimportant, emendation of the text of Epiphanius.
Even in the recent editions of Dindorf and Oehler we read, /^^ " r/tr// // i^iaKuvai rttl rri'tiuaro^
Ktii rov /('r.ov. rrpnni x^'^ .'' n.r.'/ ., as above, as if the quotation began with nirfj. Read,
/} (11 rij ij iSkik. h r '/ .. — " rhc ministr\' of the Spirit and of The Word [i.e. the ministry to which
they appoint] is Mr same" — which is illustrated by the two quotations that follow, viz. Acts xx.
28 and I Tim. i. 12.
ON THE READING " CHURCH OF GOD '* 307
banc orationem praetermisit Savilius, utpote indignum quae
legatur; nam est otiosi cujusdam Graeculi, ut nemo non
videt."
An Anonymous Scholiast in Cramer's Catena (p. 338) :
T17V tKKAtfaiav . . . f/v y&p ^ffoi 7rept€7roir/aaTo 6 Oed^ did rov alfiarog rov lAiov . happei
oh . . . KQi fjoidev ev6oidaetg [-ff^r ?] aKoieiv Ixrrrep 'lovdaloi atfia kqI au/ia Oeov to
aurifpwv, k.tX The Writer has just quoted John vi. 47-58. The
same scholion is found in MSS. No. 15, 18, and 37, though
the first two, as well as No. 36, from which Cramer published
his Catena, read Kvpiov in the text.
CEcumenius (tenth century }) : npoaix^re ovv'. . . Oeov . . . 6id r. 16.
(u/mTo^. (0pp. i. 260*, in Migne, cxviii.) This is merely the
text ; there is no allusion to Oeov in the commentary.
Theophylact (eleventh century), or rather the commentary
No. 2 published under his name by Finetti from a Vatican
MS.* Just as in CEcumenius, whose text and comment are
copied verbatim. (Opp. iii. 1016*', in Migne, cxxv.)
I do not follow Bengel in citing the Orthodoxa Confessio
Eccl. Orient., P. i. Q. 85 (Kimmel, Libri synib. Eccl. Or,
p. 158), as that document belongs to about the middle of the
seventeenth century, and also quotes i John v. 7 (P. i. Q. 9).
Tischendorf should not have cited Pope Caelestine I. (a.d.
423), Ep, xviii. ad Syn. Eph, (Migne, 1. 5o8S or Concil., ed.
Coleti, iii. 114S**), as an authority for the Greek here, as the
Greek text of this Epistle is plainly a mere translation from
the Latin which it accompanies : upockx^rF. kavroiq koX nday nj
€iyi?,tf, 17 f ii/ii. T. TTv, T.dy. ira^ev £7riaK67Tovg, dioiKeiv r. Ik. t. Beov, f/v irEpien.
TV i<5*> aifiari, This is shown also by the translation of other
passages of Scripture in the same Epistle.
The earliest writer not Greek who seems to have quoted
this verse with the reading " God " is the Egyptian monk
Orsiesius or Oresiesis (fl. a.d. 345), De Inst. Monach, c. 40
(Migne, Patrol, Gr. xl. S^^Q") : " scientes vos reddituros ratio-
nem pro omni grege, super quern vos Spiritus sanctiis constituit
inspicere et pascere ecclesiavt Dei, quam acq nisi vit proprio
•The designation of this commentary by Griesbach and Scholz as " Thcoph. 2," and of that
■lemioticd above under I. as " Theophyl. 3," has led to the erroneous statements by Davidson,
Trcfdles, and others, that Theophylact reads ^f oi; twice, and KVpiov three times.
308 CRITICAL ESSAYS
sanguined But we have him only at third hand. The
treatise was written in Coptic, then translated into Greek,
from which version Jerome, as he tells us, dictated to a
notaritis his Latin translation, in which alone it has come
down to us.
The Latin Fathers who have quoted this verse with the
reading Dei are all later than Jerome, most of them much
later, and only attest what is already settled, the reading of
the Vulgate. I will, then, simply name those in whom I
have found the reading Dei down to the time of Beda in the
eighth century, referring to the places.
Caelestine I. has been already cited (p. 307) ; next come
Cassian (cir. 430), De Incani. vii. 4 (Migne, 1. 204*");* Julianus
Pomerius (a.d. 498, al. Prosper Aquitanus), De Vita conteinp.
ii. 3. § I (M. lix. 446"), bis ; Paschasius the Deacon (a.d. 501,
al. Faustus Rejensis), De Spir. satict. ii. 10 (M. Ixii. 21'**);
Fulgentius (a.d. 507), De Fide, c. 19, al. 60, and Cont. Fabian.
fr. 33 (M. Ixv. 699^ 807') ; Anon, (sixth century.?) Brev. Fidei
cont. Arian. (M. xiii. 662***); Pope John II. (a.d. 532-5), Ep. ad
Senat. (M. Ixvi. 22**); F*errandus (a.d. 533), Ep. iii. ad AncU.
c. 14 (M. Ixvii. 902**, 903'); Primasius (a.d. 550), /;/ Apoc. \ni.
10 (M. Ixviii. 852'); Pope Martin I. (a.d. 649), Ep. i. (Lat. and
Gr. M. Ixxxvii. 129'', or ConciL, ed. Coleti, vii. 386"^ see also
col. 95"); Beda (a.d. 701), Super Act. Ap. Expos., in loc. (Opp.
iii. 986*, ed. Migne, in Patrol, xcii.) ; and Anon, (eighth or
ninth century), Dc xlii. Mans. Fil. Isr. c. 13 (M. xvii. 24*).
I refer to this last treatise, often printed with the works of
Ambrose, merely because it is cited by Sabatier, and might
be mistaken for a witness to the Old Latin. But Sabatier
assigns its date to the time of Beda or Rabanus (Bib. Sac.
Lat. Verss. Ant. i. p. Ixii.).
The allusion of Arcadius, delegate of the Church of Rome
at the Council of liphesus, a.d. 431 (Act. ii. — Concil.^ ed.
Coleti, iii. 1147-48), does not determine the reading: "pro
ecclesia Dei, quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus sanguine
* Following a mistake of Grieshach in copying from Wetstein, Scholz, Tischcndorf (eds. 18491
1859), Alford, Porter, Davidson, and Scrivener substitute Cassiodorus for Cassian.
ON THE READING " CHURCH OF GOD " 3O9
sue 3,Cquisivit, (7r. I'^f/) r^^ i«. tov deov, f/v 6 Kvpioq ^fiuv *I. X. r^ kavrov
(Ufiari iT£f)itTroiTj<jaTo.
Of the Latin writers named above, Cassian, Paschasius,
Fulgentius (dis), Ferrandus, Pope John II., Primasius, and
Beda cite the passage with reference to the deity of Christ ; the
anonymous authors of the Breviariitm Fidei and the treatise De
xlii. Mansionibiis adduce it in proof of the deity of the Holy
Spirit ; the others do not quote it for a doctrinal purpose.
On the use of the expression " the blood of God," and many
kindred expressions, in the writings of the Fathers, see Sup-
plementary Note A, p. 320 ff.
III. AUTHORITIES FOR THE READING Kvp'vov koI Beov.
Manuscripts. — C^ H, L, P, all of the ninth century and
of inferior character, with more than one hundred and
ten clirsives (cent, x.-xv.), most of them of little value.
Nos. _L, JL, —^—f -3L, 96 jM 137 and i±^ are marked with a
Xll' XV' XorXl XIV XI XIIT Xl XII
star by Tischendorf as distinguished from the rest by a more
frequent accordance with the oldest copies, but none of them
seems in the Acts remarkably distinguished in this respect.
Most noteworthy, perhaps, are No. 31 (Gosp. 69), and No.
137 which has a singular agreement with the eccentricities
of D and with the margin of the Harclean Syriac.
Anxient Versions. — The Slavonic, of the ninth century.
Fathers. — Theophylact, as edited by Sifanus, — No. i of
the Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles published
under the name of Theophylact, — has this reading in the
text, with no remark on the words in the commentary. (0pp.
iii. 777^y ed. Migne ; Patrol, cxxv.)
MSS. No. 3, 95**, and the Arabic of the Polyglot read
Kv^ov eeov ; and No. 47 Bf^ov kqI Kvp'iov. The Georgian version
(sixth century) is cited by Scholz as reading Kvpiov tov deoi.
But we have no trustworthy edition of it.
IV. authorities for the reading xp^GToi'.
Manuscripts. — None.
Anxient Versions. — The Peshito Syriac in all editions
but Lee's, and in many MSS. (one of the sixth century, others
3IO CRITICAL ESSAYS
of the seventh, eighth, and ninth), both Jacobite and Nes-
torian (see Supplementary Note B) ; the Aethiopic in Piatt's
edition, and in most of the MSS. ; and the Erpenian Arabic,
made from the Syriac.
Fathers. — Athanasius, Ep, i. ad Scrap, c. 6, in three
MSS. ; see above, under I. p. 298; Theodoret (a.d. 423), Int
Ep. ad Philip, i. i, 2 (0pp. iii. 560^, ed. Migne ; Patrol.
Ixxxii.) : lipootx^re . . . vfi. kBero . . . not/a. r. h. r. xp^^rrov ; and Pscud-
Athanasius, Dial i. cofit, Maced. c. 13 (0pp. ii. 550^ ed.
Bened. ; Migne, xxviii. 1312**), quoting precisely like Theo-
doret, above.* Pseudo-Fulgentius (sixth century), Pro Fide
Catli. c. 9 (Migne, Ixv. 716^^) : Attendite gregem Christie in quo
vos Spiritus sanctus constitnit cpiscopos. Yox the Speculum^
which \i2i^Jesii Christie see above, under I. p. 303 f.f
Let us now attempt to weigh the evidence. The question
lies, of course, only between the readings Kvpim) and feot*.
The MS. authority for the rival readings may seem, at
first view, nearly balanced ; but I must regard it as decidedly
preponderating in favor of Kf/a/ov. k and B are excellent MSS.,
but we must not overestimate their value. One of the two
is often wrong, for they often differ ; and the cases in which
they arc both wrong, though much rarer, are sufficiently
numerous to teach us that their combined testimony is far
from decisive. One clear example, unless we suppose these
two MSS. right in opposition to all the other MSS. and all
the ancient versions, and to internal evidence, is to be found
in Acts xvi. 32, where, for the less familiar expression rovy6yov
* Gamier attributes this Dialogue to Theodoret, and publishes it as Dial. iv. de Sfir. sancto
among seven Dialogi de Trinitate which he ascribes to that author; others, as Pctavius, Combe-
hs, and Du I'in, more correctly, as Schulzc thinks, assign it to Maximus the Confessor (a.u. 645).
Tischcndorf cites it both under *' Dial>i«act'd " and *' Thdrt''.'^''-," as if these were two indeiicndent
authorities.
t Other authorities cited for ;YptfT~oh ^re not quotations, and afford no proof that Acts xx. a8
was in the mind of the writer; a^ Origcn, />«• Orat. c. 28, xftfOTOv loVi/CauiviW tjuhq ru* tfii(^
(iiufirt ; Exhort, ad Mart. c. 12, (, uDjonixi mij tjUnq ru envrnv rifiiu aiunri^ and c. 50,
<\)r!-r:t:() riuiu an/art roi< 'Iz/nor i/)nfuia^^r,ntv (Opp. i. 252*", 282*1, and 309c, ed. Dc la Rue).
The hreviarium of Kasil referred to by Welstein and others, which Davidson says " can only
mean Hasil's Regulac brevius tractataf^" where he has " searched for it in vain," is simply the
summary or headinq of his Mitral. Ixxx. c. 1^1, quoted under II. above, p. 306, and amounts to
nothing. It has merely the expression (',)(^ rro/uyvf^ T/wJdrwv ;^f/jf(7rot'.
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD " 3II
TWKvpiov, H and B have substituted the more familiar rdvAdyov
Tovdeov, as I believe they have done here.* In the Acts and
Catholic Epistles, so far as I can judge without a thorough
examination, A is right nearly, if not quite, as often as k.
The MS. authority for Kvphv is made exceedingly strong by
the fact that its uncials represent both the Alexandrian and
the Western forms of the text, and that it embraces nearly
all of the best cursives. In cases where our chief uncials
differ, the testimony of those MSS. which are remarkable
for their frequent or general agreement with them is obvi-
ously of special importance. To show how great is the
superiority of the cursives which support Kvpiov over those
which have ^^ov^ we need not go far, though numerous exam-
ples of a striking character will be found in the Acts, (a)
The omission of ohv in ver. 28 is supported by k, A, B, D, 1 3,
I5» 36, 81, 180, o*"; of these six cursives, all but one read
«i'p<oi', and none reads ^^ov, {p) In the last clause of the verse
the reading rf«a rot) ai^aro^ rov \fiinv is found in K, A, B, C, D, E,
i3» I5» 3^ 33, 34» 36, 40, 69, 73, 81, 105, 130, 142, 156,
163, 180, a, c, m, of Scrivener, and Lect. 12. Of the fifteen
cursives t which support Kvpiw^ twelve have this reading ;
while of the fourteen which support ^^'^'i' only one has it,
Lect. 12; or, if we include those counted ex silcntio^ of
the twenty-two which read ^foy only two have it. (c) In
ver. 29 tyii without a conjunction is the reading of «*,
A, C*, D, 13, 15, 36, 81, 130, 180, all of which cursives
read Kvpiov. (d) In the same verse, oUa without rm-o is the
reading of k. A, B, C*, D, 13, 15, 36, 6S, 69, 105, 163,
180, a*". Of these nine cursives, seven support nvphv^ and
only one, No. 68, ^for. We see clearly, then, that in the
present case k and B are caught in bad company ; which
affords a strong presumption that they are in the wrong, and
•See particularly Tischendorfs note on that passage, and to his five examples in which " /M .
r. titov non solct fluctuare," add Acts xiii. 46, xvii. 13, xviii. 11. For other instances of the
agreement of K and B in readings manifestly or probably false, see Matt. vi. 8, viii. 9, ix. 33, xxvii.
49: Mark IT. 3i; Luke xv. ax; John x. 18, xix. 41; Acts xii. 25, xxviii. la; Gal. ii. la; Eph. i.
1$: > Thess. ii. 7; Heb. vii. x; Jas. i. 17; a Pet. ii. X3.
t Sixteen, including B-C. II. 7 [see p 295 ii.^J; bat I do not know how this MS. read*
in the last clause.
311 CRITECAL ESSAYS
that the uncials and cursives which usually agree with theal
are right.
The I
! numerous MSS. which read >ti>f:iDii nai Oeoi seem to me
to confirm the reading t-p™'. " The church " (or " churches ")
" of Gi>ii " being a familiar expression, occurring eleven
times in the Epistles of Paul, and " the church of The
Lord" being unique, if <i\v'"»' were original, «a' s™. or i>f>i would
be a natural marginal addition or interlineation, which would
readily pass into the text. Further, when «"«■ had been inti
duced into some MSS. by unconscious substitution of
familiar expression for the unusual one, or by the substitution
of the marginal Hiof- by those who were pleased with that
reading, copyists of MSS. with iipi'irt', finding that others had
the reading H'oi; would think themselves safe if they took»i
both into the text. But, as Tischendorf says, " Quis
additurus fuisset, si "n"' » -i' invcnisset ? "
The authorities for t/KoroD also, such as they are, seem to
favor the reading nr,™. rather than ft™. The abbreviation sr
resembles kt more than iTi- ; and in a version or quotation the
substitution of " Christ " for " Lord " (but not so for " God ")
might have seemed a matter of indifference, or have been
unconsciously made.* A deliberate falsification of the text
is the last supposition to be resorted to. That xf"^'''' has
played a great part as a marginal gloss for either readi
appears from the fact that it is found in no Greek MS.
The authority, next, of the Ancient Versions decidedly
confirms the reading opfm'. It is supported by the three oliiirst,
the Old Latin, the Memphitic, and the Thebaic, which carry
us back to a far earlier date than any of the authorities for
"'"i'j and these are confirmed by the Armenian, with the
margin of the Harclean Syriac, and indirectly, I think, by.
uur^_
ion^^^
bat
laU
took»^^H
-n to
sr
the
d-)
een
:ext
[iickichir, 187s, iL tir)-. cat
cd.» p. 308. Eng. Dam., odop
o.p. .fcj, Eng.),
n enjuupiet. EvraM, who rcHli '' Lor<l," id hu punphru
ulici u I tnnilotWD {Dit i/ni rrjlttt EvAng. •- ^. AfaiuU
1. ;»]. Reod. who in hii TiM. Ckr^liioHt. ii. 341. ■>■ >. ad
ic Tnding K\ipim\ acIualEy cilu Acts xx. iZ (ibHt. p- ti^, dime,
4 ipcilit of (he rciidiTig " pascaiit ec^LBtiam Ckriiti " u Ibu
L.
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD " 313
those that read " Christ," though their testimony is more or
less uncertain. That Jerome should adopt the reading Dei
in the Vulgate need excite no surprise, or that the Monophy-
site translator of the Philoxenian or Harclean Syriac should
prefer the reading favorable to his doctrine.
The evidence of the Fathers is pretty well balanced, but
the earlier testimony (as that of Irenaeus), though not abso-
lutely free from doubt, favors >^vpiov rather than ^fof-. The
authorities for Kvpiw also represent the principal divisions of
the Christian world. (See the detailed statements above.)
I have already observed that the earliest and the only Greek
Father who quotes the passage as bearing on the deity of
Christ is Cyril of Alexandria, in the fifth century, who adduces
it once. In connection with this point, I may quote the im-
portant remark of the Rev. Thomas Sheldon Green : " Accord-
ing to the common reading, the passage bears strongly upon
more than one great dogmatic controversy, and, accordingly,
had this form possessed established currency in the age of
those disputes, its employment as a dogmatic weapon ought
to be of no unfrequent occurrence in the writings of that
age; whereas the contrary is evidently the case." {Devel-
oped Criticism y etc., p. 112.)
We will now consider the internal evidence. What supposi-
tion will best explain the various phenomena.^
Alford says : ** If ^^ov was the original, but one reason can
be given why it should have been altered to M-p/oi;, and that
one was snre to have operated. It would stand as a bulwark
against Arianism, an assertion which no skill could evade,
which must therefore be modified. If (itoi stood in the text
originally, // was sure to be altered to Mp/ot."
I perceive no ground for this confident assumption, and
must reject it for the following reasons: (i) The Arians
were as devout believers in the sacredncss of Scripture as
their adversaries, and would equally have regarded a delib-
erate falsification of the record as a horrible impiety. There
is no evidence that they tampered with the text in any other
314 CRITICAL ESSAVS
passage of the New Testament.* The absence of l John
V. 7 from our MSS. of the Greek Testament and from the
ancient versions is not now ascribetJ to them. (2) Such an
attempt would have been absurd and useless. The Arians
did not have possession of the orthodox copies ; and how
would a wilful corruption of their own have helped them in
controversy ? It was sure to be detected, and to expose them
to shame. (3) We have no evidence that the Arians were
troubled by the passage ; it does not appear to have been
quoted by any Greek Father in the Arian controversy. (4) The
reading "'"'■ would have been really favorable to the Arians.
They did not hesitate to apply the term "'« to Christ, but
lowered its meaning. They were fond, as we learn from
AthanasiuS, of " calling Ti,t> HtdTi/ra rut /.Of-v imft/rvi'" ; of
saying that " Gad suffered through the flesh, and rose
again"; and of using the bald expression "the blood of
God." Referring to such expressions, Athanasius exclaims;
^■f. r^v oromoc nai r^r ^/oaw/zmi ! 'A/inai-iitf ra rolniTa TM^^/iara Cont.
ApoUinar. ii. 11-13. (See Supplementary Note A, p. 320 ff.)
And very naturally. " .-V Cc / whose blood was shed," says
Professor Stuart, " must surely be a "tit dtiTtpof, as the Arians
would have it, and not the impassible and eternal God, which
I believe the Logos to be." {Amcr. Bibl. Repository for
April, 1838, p. 315.) We do not find, however, that the
Arians and Apollinarians ever appealed to the reading ""•o in
this passage. They justified such language on other grounds.
(S) This hypothesis does not explain the existence of the
reading Lord m authorities which reach back to a century or
more before the Arians were heard of.
In truth, Dean Alford's theory of wilful alteration would
have been much more plausible, if he had ascribed the sub-
stitution of «'p;™ for "f"^ to the orthodox. But such an impu-
tation would, I believe, be doing them great injustice. If
they had found the word ^tm in the text, they would have
been much more likely to reverence it as containing a mys-
tery; and there was less occasion to stumble, as the opinions
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD " 315
of the earlier Christian Fathers respecting the passibility of
the Logos differed from those which afterwards prevailed.
They also used the words 0e6^ and deus rather loosely. From
an early period there were many rhetorical writers, like Ter-
tullian and Lactantius, who were fond of startling and para-
doxical expressions, which would also suit the popular taste.
(See Supplementary Note A.) At a later date the doctrine
of the comtnunicatio idiomatuni bridged the difficulty. In
the Latin Vulgate the reading Dei has been undisturbed,
being found, apparently, in all the MSS.
But though we reject the supposition of a wilful alteration
of the text on the part either of the Arians or the orthodox,
it may still be said that ki^^w may have been a marginal
explanation of ^eoi>, which would readily and innocently be
substituted by those who might stumble at the harshness of
the latter. This is possible^ but not very probable ; for the
natural marginal addition would rather have been the unam-
biguous ^/j«irou, which has been found in no Greek MS. "The
churches of Christ '* occurs once in Paul's writings ; and
'•the blood of Christ^' ''Christ died," and " Christ suffered,"
are familiar expressions.
On the other hand, supposing Kvpiov to be the original read-
ing, we can easily explain all the variations without resorting
to the hypothesis, a priori extremely improbable, of a delib-
erate corruption of the text. We have only an example of
what has occurred in a multitude of instances, the substitu-
tion by the copyist of a familiar expression for an tinusual one ;
a substitution often made unconsciously, but sometimes, per-
haps, because the more common form had been noted in the
margin. The expression "the church " (or "churches") "of
God " occurs, as has already been remarked, eleven times in
the Epistles of Paul, while "the church of the Lord'' is
found nowhere else in the New Testament ; the former
expression is also frequent, while the latter is rare, in other
early Christian writings ; see, e.g., the statement respecting
the Apostolic Constitutions under I., above, p. 297 f. The
resemblance of i Pet. v. 2 to the present passage, — Vioi^a-
pare rb iv vfuv iroi/ivtov tov deov, kniaKOTrovvT^q (om. by ^*, B, and
3l6 CRITICAL ESSAYS
perhaps derived from kmoKdirovg in Acts xx. 28), «. r ?.., — " might
aid," as Dr. Tregelles remarks, "in suggesting roideuv.'*
This tendency of transcribers to substitute the familiar
expression for the unusual, which would be particularly strong
in the present case, may be illustrated by a few examples.
Acts XV. 40, Trapadodetg ry xoptTi rov Kvpiov. "The graCC of
God'* being a very common expression, and occurring in a
similar passage (xiv. 26), Oeoi is here substituted for Kipiov by
C, E, H, L, P, and all but about six of the cursives. For
Acts xvi. 32, where w, B, seem to be clearly wrong, see above,
p. 3iof.
James iii. 9, for rbv Kiptov ml narkpa^ the familiar rbv debv Kal
irarkpa has been substituted in K, L, and, apparently, all the
cursives but two.
I Pet. iii. 15, for Kvpicv 61 rbv xP^orhv dyidaare, ic. r. A., xipiov 6e rbv
Oedv appears in K, L, P, and, apparently, all the cursives but
seven.
Col. iii. 15, for v f'lp^v rov xpio^ov, k'^, C^ D*, E, K, L, and
all but about seven of the cursives read v elpijvtj rov $eov ; comp.
Phil. iv. 7, and <J Oeuc rf/g Eipip'tK in Rom. xv. 33, and passages
cited in last paragraph of this page.
Col. iii. 22, for oo,^niuevoi Tuv Kiptov, j<, D*^, E**, K, and all but
about twelve of the cursives read <>o^?. tuv (ho v, the more com-
mon expression.
Eph. v. 21, for h' ::)63u ;t/>'^ ''>»•, K reads h <><5/?w Kvpi(>t\ comp.
Acts ix. 31 ; 2 Cor. v. 11 ; and most of the cursives ev <>. ficoi^
comp. Rom. iii. 18; 2 Cor. vii. i, and the use of the verb
2 Thess. iii. 16, for o Kvpio^ -ffi: api/vjiq, F, G, L, seven cur-
sives, and many Latin IMSS. read « ^to^ rfj^ nprfvjjg \ comp. Rom.
XV. 33, xxi. 20 ; Phil. iv. 9 ; i Thess. v. 23 ; Heb. xiii. 20. —
For other examples, see Col. iii. 16 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; Acts viii.
22, 24. I will only notice further that in the single instance
in which wc have the phrase «' fKK/rfnint -ncai rnv xpf^'f^r^ Rom.
xvi. 16, the MSS. 3, 23, 42, 69, 106, 120, 177, a***"', k"", and
two of Matthaci's ChrysOvStom MSS., read f^rov. See Wet-
stein, Scholz, and Scrivener ; Tischendorf does not note the
variation.
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD*' 317
Thus I think it clearly appears, that on the supposition
that nvfjiuv was the original reading, the variations may be
easily and satisfactorily explained ; and we may adopt the
language of Dr. Tregelles, who remarks that "even if the
evidence for ekk. rov Kvpiov had not been so strong, it would have
been confirmed by its peculiarity, and by the immense proba-
bility of the familiar phrase being substituted for it." {Account
of the Printed Text, etc., p. 233.)
BengeVs explanation of the origin of the reading ^vpiov is as
follows : " Ex LXX. apud quos saepe dicitur 'nKK/jjaia Kvphv."
The "saepe** is seven times in all: viz., Dcut. xxiii. i, 2,
3 (dis), 8 ; I Chron. xxviii. 8 ; Mic. ii. 5, the phrase being
applied to the congregation of Israel. Of this far-fetched
explanation it is enough to say that there appears to be no
reason why the cause of error assigned should not have
affected the other passages where 7 kioC/jjma rov Hfov (in the sin-
gular or plural) occurs in the New Testament as well as Acts
XX. 28. But in these eleven passages the various reading Kvpiw
is not once found, according to the critical editors, in a single
MS. Bengel's hypothesis, therefore, has no foundation.
Another argument of Dean Alford and many others for the
reading Beov is this. Paul is the speaker. He has used the
expression "church'* (or "churches") "of God'' eleven times
in his Epistles, but never "church of the Lord.'' Does not
Pauline usage, then, strongly confirm the genuineness of deov
here ^
I agree with those who regard Pauline usage as very im-
portant in its bearing on this question. In the divided state
of the external evidence, it is entitled to be regarded as a
decisive consideration. But it has been strangely misappre-
hended.
Paul has used the phrase {n) ^k. or (u es. (roi) eeoh eleven times,
eight times in the singular, three in the plural. But has any
respectable commentator in any one of these passages under-
stood him to mean Christ by Q^ov} In four of them (i Cor. i.
2; 2 Cor. i. I ; I Thess. ii. 14; 2 Thess. i. 4) Christ is in the
immediate context clearly dist in squished from ^^^k ; and in none
of the others (i Cor. x. 32, xi. 16, 22, xv. 9 ; Gal. i. 13 ; i Tim.
JlS CRiriCAL ESSAVS
iii- 5. 'S) has Dean Alford suggested, or would it occur to
any reader, that Wfuf' is used as a designation of Christ. So
far, then, as the phrase in question is concerned, the appeal
to the usage of Paul shows that it is extremely improbable
that he would have employed it here to describe the church
as belonging to Christ.
Let us look a little further. What is the usage of Paul io
the rest of this discourse? Examine the use of the words
if'piof and flfiic in vv. 19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 32, 35 ; note especially
w. 21 and 24. Is it not clear, without argument, that the
usage of the apostle here favors the supposition that he
would employ -ff""" rather than Ce™ to denote Christ in ver. 28 ?
If he had occasion to describe the church as belonging to
Christ, he might have used the name "Christ," as he has done
in Rom, xvi. 16 ; but in such a connection as this, in speaking
of the Chief Shepherd of the flock, after reference to the
iclffwiffoi, — overseers of the church, but ser\'ants of Christ, —
it was particularly appropriate that «'>"\ should be used, the
terra by which the apostle especially delights to designate
Christ in his exaltation; see Phil. ii. 9-1 1. Arator in his
paraphrase, quoted above under I. p. 303, seems to have felt
the point of the expression : " Famuli retincre laborent Quae
Dominus de morte dedit." See also on this matter Words-
worth's note.
But much more is to be said ; and, as two or three of the
passages to which I shall have occasion to refer have been
sometimes appealed to in theological controversy, I beg that
it may be understood that I am not attempting to argue a
doctrinal question, which would here be out of place, but
wish simply to call attention to certain important facts in
relation to the New Testament use of language.
If rni etuii here denotes Christ, we have '<• OrO; used absolutely,
not as t'<4r is predicated of the >^iy<K /'"apto^ in John i. 1, but
assumed as a designation of Christ in his mediatorial rela-
tion, and this when the term has just before been used in the
same discourse in marked distinction from Christ. What is
Pauline usage in regard to this point ?
The term Si6r. occurs in Paul's writings, not including tU
ON THE READING " CHURCH OF GOD " 319
Epistle to the Hebrews, more than five hundred times. How
does he employ it ? We all know that his habitual use of
language in his Epistles is in perfect accordance with i Cor.
viii. 6, w'^"^ ^V ^fof b iraT^p, k^ ov ra Trdvra Kal r/fielq e'lq avrdv, kqI nc Kvpto^
*i)?ff<nf XpiffTo^, 6c 01; TO. Trdvra Kal ^fieic 6c avTov. I need not refer to
other passages, as Eph. iv. 5, 6; Phil. ii. 9-1 1. Paul certainly
had a most exalted conception of Christ, — see, e.g., Col. ii.
9, i. 15-20 ; but I am now speaking simply of his jise of lan-
guage; and it cannot be denied that he generally sharply dis-
tinguishes ^m and x9^ot^\ e.g., i Cor. iii. 23, xi. 3 ; i Tim. ii.
5. Has he ever given the name Qf^k to Christ } Alford him-
self finds only one instance in all his writings in which he
supposes him to have done so ; viz., in Rom. ix. 5. But I
need not say that the application of Bi6q in Rom. ix. 5 depends
on the punctuation and construction, on which the most emi-
nent scholars have differed ; and when we observe that Lach-
mann, Buttmann, Kuenen and Cobet, and Tischendorf * have
so punctuated the passage as to exclude the reference to
Christ, and that their construction has been adopted or
favored by commentators so able and unprejudiced as Riick-
ert (2d ed.), Fritzsche, Liicke,! De Wette, Meyer, Ewald,
Clausen (author of the Hermeneutik), Van Hengel, and Jow-
ett ; by such a grammarian as Winer, and by many eminent
recent translators, as Holtzmann (in Bunsen's Bibclwerk),
Noyes, Oltramare, Lipsius (in the Protestanten-Bibcl), Pro-
fessor Godwin, Davidson, Volkmar, Weizsacker, and in the
new Authorized Dutch Version (1868), we can hardly, I
think, rely with any confidence on this supposed exception to
the otherwise unifortn usage of the apostle. J And consider the
extent of this usage, the exceeding frequency with which
the words in question occur ! If the usus loquendi of a writer
*So Dr. Hort; see the note on the passage in Westcott and Hort's Gr. Test., vol. it.
t D* Invocatione Jtsu Christi, Part I. (1843), P- 8; and MS. notes of his Lectures on Romans,
taken by Professor £. J. Young.
JOn Eph. V. 5 and Tit. ii. 13, on which few would now lay any stress, it may be enough to
refer to Alford, Meyer, Huther, and Winer: and on Col. ii. 2, if we adopt the reading 701' uvcrij-
piov rnv Beov, Xpirrmr, to the notes of Bishop Ellicott and Dr. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hor».
and Wieseler (on Gal. i. z).
320 CRITICAL ESSAYS
is ever to be regarded in textual criticism, I hardly see how
there could be a stronger case than the present.
In treating a critical question like this, we must not con-
found the style of the fourth century, or even of the second)
with that of the first, or allow ourselves to be unconsciously
influenced by the phraseology with which custom has made
us familiar. We find in some writers in the latter half of the
second century and afterwards, — or, as some suppose, even
earlier, — when the application of the names 6t6g and deus to
Christ had become frequent, such expressions as the blood,
the sufferings, the birth and death, the burial and resurrection
of God ; but I need not say how foreign this language is from
the style of the New Testament.
It appears to me, then, in fine, that the evidence of MSS.,
ancient versions, and the early Christian writers, when fairly
weighed, decidedly preponderates in favor of the reading
^vfuov ; and that, even if the external testimony for (few were
far stronger than it is, we should not be justified in adopt-
ing it, in the face of the extreme improbability that Paul
(or Luke) should have here used an expression so foreign
from his own style and that of the New Testament writings ;
especially when the origin of ^'^or- and of all the other varia-
tions can be so easily and naturally explained, on the supposi-
tion that KVfHov is the genuine reading.
Two matters of interest remain which require some further
notice, and which, for convenience, have been reserved for
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.
A. — ON THE USE OF SUCH EXPRESSIONS AS "THE BLOOD OF
GOD" IN THE WKrriNGS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS.
In a few passages of early Christian writings the expression " the blood of
God" occurs; and it is urged, not without plausibility, that " nothing short of
scriptural authority could have given early vogue to a term so startling." The
Fathers who use it are thus regarded as indirect witnesses to the genuineness of
the reading ^for in Acts xx. 28.
If the writers who employ this expression used it in such a connection as to
show that this particular passage was in their minds, and if they were generally
ON THE READING ** CHURCH OF GOD'* 32 1
careful not to use startling expressions analogous to this without some Scripture
precedent, the argument would have much weight. But so far as my examination
of their writings has extended, — which indeed has not been exhaustive, — the
reverse is true. Though language of this sort was freely used by some, and
strongly condemned by others, and though the passage would seem to have a
direct bearing on the Patripassian controversy and on the Gnostic controversies of
the second and third centuries, yet I cannot Hnd that it was ever adduced, on the
one hand, by way of justification of such expressions, or that, on the other,
attempts were made to explain it away. Other passages, far less relevant, were
appealed to; but, concerning this, altuni silentium. The reading iki/v had doubt-
less found its way into some MSS. as early as the first part of the fourth century;
but it had not become current; it had not attracted attention; and it is not till
the fifth century that we find it actually quoted in reference to the deity of Christ
and the propriety of such language as " the blood of God."
llie expression aijia Htov occurs in Ignatius, £p^. c. l, avai^GyrrvpTjaavTeg kv
atfiari f^env ru ffi')-} fvikov fpyov Tc/eicj^ ('nrypTiffaTe, according to the Shorter
Greek form of the Epistles, and in the Syriac version of the Three Epistles as
published by Cureton; the Old Latin version of the Shorter form reads " in san-
guine Chrisii Dei "; and the Longer Epistles, ev aiuari XfufTTov. The Armenian
version, made from the Syriac, omits the phrase altogether; and Petermann, in
his edition of Ignatius (p. 6), says, '* Equidem dixerim, primitus scriptum esse
XpiGToij deinde ex nota Monophysitae cujusdam marginali in textum irrepsisse
fkw, ac deinde vocem ;f/)mrai> excidisse." Bunsen puts a comma after a'l^ari, and
connects ifeov either with to av^ytviKov (^Die drei iichten . . . Briefe des Ignatius^
1847, PP- 42f 86, n. 7), or with ipyov (^IlippolytuSy i. 95, 2d ed.). But for brevity
I waive all question of the reading, or the construction, or the genuineness of the
Epistles, which, so far as I can venture at present to judge (and this is the view
of eminent scholars), cannot be regarded as earlier in any of their forms than the
latter half of the second century. The phrase suits the style of these Epistles
very well, and the only point important to notice is that there is nothing in the
context to suggest in the slightest degree a reference to the passage in the Acts.
The appeal sometimes made to Ignat., Jiovi. c. 7, rests on a false reference of
oirroi', to say nothing of the fact that ^fou after ;r<5//a is probably spuri<nis.
The next example is in Tertullian {^Ad Uxor. ii. 3) : " Non sumus nostri, sed
pretio empti; et quali pretio? sanguine Dei." Here, again, there is no allusion
in the context to Acts xx. 28; and even Burton admits ( Testivi. of the Ante-
Nicene Fathers to the Div. of Christy 2d ed., p. 25) that ** his words bear such a
direct reference to another text, i Cor. vi. 19, 20, that we cannot say whether he
had the words of St. Paul to the Ephesians also in mind." I will add that
Roensch, who in his Das Netie Testament Tertullian' s (1871) has collected with
great care all the allusions of Tertullian to passages of the New Testament as
well as his quotations, finds no allusion in his writings to Acts xx. 28.
The remaining example of this expression is in Clement of Alexandria {Qitis
dives salvetuTf c. 34) : " Not knowing how great a treasure we bear in an earthen
vessel, dwdfiet Oeov Trarpb^ hat aiuari Oznv rraa^of Kfu i^pdatj rrvEvparoi; ayinv rrrp/
Tereixtafxivov." Here, again, there is in the connection no allusion to Acts xx. 28.
These are all the examples that have been adduced, so far as I am aware, from
333
CRITICAL ESSAYS
the Aaie-Nicene Falhers, of Ihe expression "blood of God."* They are found
in highly [hetorical n titers, ttmarkaljle genernlly for the harshness and eiiiava-
gtnce of Iheit language. They are connecled with a laip nuinbet of kindred
expreESons, in which the Kalhers speak of Ihe hirlh, conception, flesh, body,
tullciin^, death, ciuciiixion, burid, anit resurtcctiuD of God, (uc which no Sccipt'
are precedent can be plea^ted, but which are founded merely on inference.
Under thiae circunutancea, it seems to me extremely rash to single out this, one
of the rareit, and claim that it implies the exlttenee of (be reading "'"'' in .\cct
XX. xS, against the very strong presumption that, if il bad existed there, il would
often have been directly appealed lo.
I regret that the nhoUy nnexpecled length to which the preceding discossiun
faai extended forbids any detailed illuslTalion of what has been slated in regard
to Ihe language of Ihe Christian Fathers, and of Ihe extent 1^ which, when the
use of friic and i/chi as appellations of Christ had become familiar, they use the
musi harsh and startling cipressiuns without Scriptural authority, and simply as
the result uf inference. 1 can only refer lo Ihe collection of such expresuons
given by WcWein in his note on Acts xx. sB {A'. T. ii. 596 f,), and add some
reference! to passages not noticed by him.
See Ignatius, Horn. c. 6 ; " Suffer me to be an imitator ™i ■rr&Bav^ tw ^oi' fioK."
Here, again, there are various readings (see Upsius, Text dtr drti syr. Britft,
pp. 77, 78). Eph. c. lE: a yap H™( ^/iiiv 'iTiainn' a Xpurrif fmv^iitfiii i-^rii Mopiot.
— Talian, Or. ad Grate, e. 13: "rejecting rii- iiaKUvn [the Holy Spirit] -rot
tmrovMrnc Stoi." — Melito, Ex Strut, dr PaisioHt, ap. Anastasium Sin.: a 0;i[
irfnoiSiv i«ra dtfiiif 'IffpovX/ndof, but in the Syriae: "God was put to death 1 the
King of Israel was slain by an Israelilish right hand" (see Curelon. Sfiin'l. Syr.
p. 55, cf. p. 56; or OtlOi Corp. Apel, CAriit. h. pp. 416, 433, 444 (f.. and 459,
n. 119). Cureton has some doubt whether this and some other pieces in which
•imilar language occurs belong lo Meliloi there may lie a confusion between
Melito and Meletiua, '■ the honey of Attica," who flourished in the fourth ceutury.
Sec his Spieil. Syr. pp. 96, 97. — Tetlullian, as might be expected from his fiery
intensity of feeling, and the audadlies of his glowing slyle. has much language
of the kind referred to. See, e.g., De Carni Chrisli, c, 5. Afler speaking of
the " passiones Dei," he exclaims : " Quid enim inJignius Deo . . , nasci an mori?
camem gestore ati crucem? circumcidi an suffigi? educari an sepeliri ? in praeiepe
dcponi nn in nionimetilo recondi? . . . Nanne vere crucihxus est Deus? nonne
vere mortuus est, ut vere crucifixus? nunne vere resuscilalus, ulvere scilicet mor-
tuus?" He goes on to speak of the " inlcrcmptorcs Dei." On the passage jus!
cited, which contains Ihe famous sentence Cerium til, quia imfinisMit, so often
misquoted, I would refer lo Ibe valuable notes of Mr. Norton, Gtnuinentst of
the Gosf/ls, 2d ed., iii. 175 (f., or ii. 272 ft Eng. ed. For other examples of simi-
lar language in TerluUian, see iHJ. c. 4; Adt'. Mariien. ii. 16 (morluum Deiim),
27 (Deum crucifixnm); iv, 13 (quia Deus hamQ natus erat); v. 5 (nativitas et
• la ih* Paul. Samsi. Quattl. (Q. iv,), jBcribed to Dionywiu of Aleisodii*, wn have i)w
imiionrd a>pa Tit ii; "><• ro'v llior wiiv 'li/auii X/ifarii.' (C«ciV..«j. Colcli, i. SSSb): bui
. Huiton BhaiiUI aiX have ciled this work u he hu done, ugcibei wilh the »-aiIIcil Epuik of
»irsiu> »g=ir« IW o< SamoBB fBunm., r,.lim. p. 15 f.. ,= !.. 16.. wr4'9l.--i'>'0"l ™^»
: rudn of ibeir probable gpunouineci. See Ludnet'i Werii, U. iSj K, wl. 1S39.
ON THE REAX>ING "CHURCH OF GOD " 323
caro Dei); De Patient, c. 3. — Ircnaeus, Cont. Haer. v. 19, § i : '* [Maria] per
angelicum sermonem evangelizata est, ut portaret Deum." — Clement of Alexan-
dria, Paed. ii. c. 3, p. 1 90, ed. Potter: roi:q -it^aq ivi-rtv a'vTuv aaiaiu -rrtfuCiJcd-
fuvoc 6 ari-oof fieog Kat Kipin^ rtjv o/uv. Ibid. c. 8, p. 214: if^iu^tv rov H(6i-. —
Hippolytus, De AniichristOy c. 45 (Migne, Patrol, x. 764'*) : rhv iv Kot/ia irapHi-
vov (nn'ei/.Tfufiivoi' Bebv /.o^^ov. Ex Semi, in Elcan. et Annam : wf 6 <iT0CTo/.nf
/iy«, To de ird<T;fa yui^v inip i/fiuv iffifi// Xparog u tkuq (Migne, col. 864*^). '0
Btit^ is in the same way added io i Cor. v. 7 in MS. number 116, and in one MS.
of Chrysostom; and that passage is so quoted, according to Wctsteii;, by the
Lateran Council. Such cases are instructive. — Novatian, Df Ke^\ Fid. sire de
Trin. c. 25, opposes those who argued, " Si Christus Deus, ChristiLs autem mor-
tuus, ergo raortuus est Deus." — Synod of Anlioch (a.d. 269, Epist. ad Dionys.
et Max. (in Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii. 312, 2d ed.) : /'^oc 7/r n- ^ncTTpl owtn^aujuivit^ t<^
di-Hpurrivu; and see what precedes. — Siln'lline Oracles, vi. 26, <1) ^ihw u fiaKapi-
croi.ii^*(fi deuf k^travi-cOr, 'y vii. 66, r/i/uon', o'vk *}ro>f ror aiv th6i\ ut; iror' t/.ovctv
'lofH^di-ov ev ':Tp(fx^f}(yi [Friedlieb vi^areoci']; viii. 28S, Kai i^ugovci fieu paTricT/jara
X^polv dvayvoit;, quoted by Lactantius, iv. 18; viii. 462. (U^ai axpdvroKJt 6ebv an'ic,
TTapi^ivt, /cd/To/f. See also vii. 24. — There is a great abundance of such language
in Lactantius; see Inst. iv. cc, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 29, 30. — Alexander of Alex-
andria, De Anima et Corpore^ c. 5 (Migne, xviii. 595, cf. 603), preserved in Syriac
*and Arabic : " Quaenam. oro, necessitas Deum coegit in terram descendere, car-
ncm assumere, panniculis in praesepi involvi, lactante sinu ali, baptismum in
famulo suscipere, in crucem toUi, terreno sepulcro infodi, a mortuis tertia die
rcsurgcre?" — Apostolical Constitutions, lib. viii. (late) c. i, § 4: otl axr^x^Ph^^^
fifoi' (jravpov v^ifuii-ev alaxvvfK Kara^povi/caq 6 ^fof /djof, koX in CLTredave koi
vrdoTj Kat avioTTj, k. t. /..
The subject has been very imperfectly presented, but the foregoing references
and citations may be sufficient to estal)lish the position taken. They may also
serve to show, in reference to the argument that t^toi is the /ectio durior^ that
expressions which seem very harsh to us were well suited to the taste of many in
the second and third centuries. And how ready the Christian Fathers were to
confound their own inferences with the language of Scripture may appear, to take
a single example, from Cyril of Alexandria, who says: T/f fVt roanvrov ^kurivE\\
wf }i^ f3ov?^atku fie TO. tcjv Evayyt'/.iuv tkordicrn' dnnKa?.eiv ri/v dyiav Trap'
diifiv; (^Quod B. Maria sit deipara^ c. 23; Opp. ix. 284^, in Migne, Ixxnx). One
who thinks the Fathers would have been very scrupulous about using such expres-
sions as pwo>ei7/f f^cdf, aipa ffeoi; etc., unless they had found them in Scripture,
may look into Sophocles^s Greek Lexicon, under such words as dfie/.i^eo^^ tieo-
ytw^rcjp, 0£okt6vo^^ Gtour/rup, tftoKdrup, and 0t:o:7pnuf'/rcjp, to say nothing of OtoTo-
ifof. The title Dei aina applied to Anna, the mother of the Virgin, became so
popular that, as Wetstein remarks, Clement XL had to issue an edict against it,
as ofTensive to pious ears.
One very early passage, wrongly supposed, as I think, to speak of " the suffer-
ings of God," requires a little discussion, which has been reserved for the present
place.
In the First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 2), we read
tA TFoJdijfiaTa avTov iv Trpb otpdaAfidv vucjv^ tov Otul being the near antece-
3"4
CRITICAL ESUTS
dent.' Bat u Ihe term 0(6!, with ur uithoul the ariic1«, U throughout the Episile
applied exclusively lo the Kalher. anil u a>ca in iimrkeil ili&linctiuii frum Chiul (tet,
t^.,ce. 1,7, 12,16,20,41,46,49,50,58, 59), this reference of the oin.ii would seem
to make Clement a Palripassian; and such is the view o( Lipsiol (_De Cltm. Ram.
Ep. ad Car. priort, pp. loi, lOi), eonip. Hellwag, in the Titel. Jakrb, 1848,
p. 355 f. Bnl this supposition, as well as the Buppcisitiou that the second person
of the Trinity is inlenited by the roi', Heov preceding, is so entirely out uf harmony
with the re*t of the Epiitle (sec above, and in reference lu the blcxid of Christ,
cc. 7, 13. 2l| 49). that I should regard as much more probable the conjecture of
fioH^ltaTa for iraff^iuira. proposed by the lirst editor of the Epistle, Patrick Voung
CJuniiu), and adopted by Fleury (//ill. Bed. liv. ii. e. 33), WhitLy {^Ditq. Mtd.
p. iS), Hilgenfeld (A". T. txtra Can. i. p. 5, note), and Donaldson (^/cjf.
FalAtri, 1S74, pp. 157, 158). The older forms of the Mu and 11 were sometimes
hardly di-itinguiihable;t and, as Dr. Lightfuot (in lot.') remarks, " the con(u«oD
of fiaHvr^. itaHirrit. In Ign. /Wjr. 7, and fmUf/fiaTa, 7ra%iara, in Ign. Smyrn. 5,
■hows that the Interchange would be caiy." And 1 do not perceive much force
in the remark that "the reading iiaHrniara would destroy the propriety of (he
eipres^ons in the parallel clauses ... 'the words in your Aearls, the sufferingi
before your tyts.' " The eyes of the mind — what Cleoienl calls rii Au/irth n/t
iivxf/i: (c- >9) and ol iK^aXt^ol r^ no/iilior (c. 36) are certainly referred lo; and,
ihe use of such language with iiaSii]fiara is perfectly paralleled hy ripi KaiiiSocty
(ruv a-K0<n6hjv) xpo 6if8aX/iuv Ixwr, in Iren. //atr. iii. 3, g 3; comp. Ctnst.
Apail. ii. 36, % I, and Marl. Polye. c I. See also Analol. Can. Pauh. c. 5:
"Xpaniiv Koi 7ii X(jioriii' luX KaTii^rrpl^iaHai /lal^ iiara »ai tranr/tiara. But
the coDJEClure, however plausible, does not seem necessary; we have only lo sup-
pose a somewhat negligent use of ai-Tm (of which we have an example near Ihe
end of the same chapter, and others in cc. 32, 34, 36, 50), referring lo Christ in
lAe mind of the v/riUr, though not named. I1iis is the view of Dr. Ssmuel
aarke ((Tar*!, iv. 569), RSssler {Bildiolkii d. Kirchtn-VlUrv, i. 47. n. a),
Martini {Gnek. du Dogma von dtr CollMl CAris/i, p. 24, note), Domcr (Ltire
von Jir Pirsen Chtiili, i. 139, or p. 99, Eng. trans.), Bunsen {Ifippalylus, i. 46.
, note, ad ed.), Ekker [De Clem. Jiom. Episl. p. 92, note), and Reuss {Tlihl.
ChrititnHi, ii. 326, 3' (d.). For such a use of nv^i^, see Luke ii. 38, xvii. 16;
Acts XV. 5; 1 John ii. la, a?, 28, and other places; and comp. Wahl, Claris Jv. T.
S. v. a\itl>i. 2 c. hb-dd, and Winer, Grant. \ 22. 3, and § 67. 1. d. In the passage
in question I adopt the punctuation of Ltghtfool and Gebhardt (who put a colon
after a/iKoi'/jn™) , and their interpretation of f^Jmliwe. Obscfvtng, ihcii, that
Clement has just borrowed a saying introduced in Acts xx. 35 liy ihe phrase
" remtmbering Ihe words of the Lord Jesus," how natural that, wilh Christ in
mind, he should go on to say, " and diligently giving heed to his words ye had
laid them up in your hearts, and his suFfcrings were before yuur eyes " \ 1 refer,
it will be seen, both of Ihe aiirnii's lo Christ. This is also, perhaps, favored liy
nvJydifc
uJ tp,*ri
opia-R[«k form o[ M io Uhlenuim^^
id Donaldson, u referred Kt abAve.
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD 325
the use of the plural^ tov^ 7.6} ov^ avrov; comp. in this Epistle cc. 13, 46; also
Acts XX. 35; I Tim. vi. 3, ConsL ApoU, viii. 45; whereas, except in Kev. xvii. 17,
xix. 9, where the reference is to the words of a particular prophecy, we always
have in the New Testament, and I think in the Apostolical Fathers, b /.o>of, not
oi a6)oi, Tiiv dtov. X The general resemblance in sentiment (noticed by Professor
Lightfoot) between c. 2 of Clement and c. 13, in which "the words" of Christ
are twice appealed to, lends confirmation to this view, on which I have dwelt the
longer, as no notice is taken of it in the editions of Cotelier, Jacobson, Hefele,
Dressel, Lightfoot, Gebhardt, and Harnack, or in any other within my knowledge.*
An important passage of Athanasius remains to be considered, which I (juote
in full, as different views have been taken of its bearing. Con/. Apollinar. ii.
14 (Opp. i. 951, ed. Bened., or Migne, x<vi. 1156^) : f^hdaiKrv 61 aiua 6t:ov 6i;\[a
caphug rTaf}a(h6(l)Kaaiv a'l yfiat^u, i/ tkuv ()ui aafjKo^ TraOui-Ta Kai avaarnv-a. ' Xptia-
vuv TO. Toinvra ro/.fir/uara, tTztuMj fif/TE dtov a/,f/6ivbv tuv vibv tov f^trw bfio/.oyovciv.
kl 6e ayiai yfXujKii kv aapKi Oeov Kal oapKog 6eov ai'Hpuzov yEvnukvov, cufia, Kiii
Tzafkic, Kal avdarcusiv Kr/pvrrovm atj^aro^ (hov, avdaraatv ek veKpuv yE^>o/nh'r/i'. I
would propose a different punctuation of the last sentence, — placing a comma
after KTipirrovat^ and removing it after ^evofikvov and after the last dtov. We may,
then, translate as follows: " But the Scriptures have nowhere spoken of * blood
of God * apart from the flesh, or of Goii as having suffered and risen again through
the flesh. Such audacities belong to the Arians, since they do not confess that
the Son of God is true God. But the holy Scriptures speak of blood and suffer-
ing and resurrection in the flesh of God and of the flesh of God become man, —
a resurrection from the dead of the body of God."
I have italicized certain words made emphatic by position. Here, for aJ/ia 6'fof
fiixn onpKu^, the edition of Athanasius ex OJicin. Commeiinianay 1601 (i. 503*),
reads aiua Btov Koff vfiag, which is also the reading of the Paris edition of 1627
(i. 645***^). Wetstein, who used the former edition, quotes the passage with i/ficn;
for iudg (probably a misprint, as the two words are often confounded), where-
upon Dr. Burton charges him with inserting Katf t'/uur " from his own head," and
leaving out the words ^/^rx napKd^^ ** upon which the whole meaning of the pas-
sage turns." (^Testimonies of the Ante-Xicene Fathers^ p. 20 f.) This is unjust
to Wetstein; and the charge is the more unfortunate, as Dr. Burton himself imme-
diately misquotes the edition (the Benedictine) which he professedly follows, sub-
stituting &LX^ capKu<; for (^id capKoc in the second clause ; and in citing the last
sentence (p. 22) omits the last clause, which is important as determining its con-
struction. He has also, if I mistake not (I would speak with deference), miscon-
strued and mistranslated the sentence.f
• This explanation is adopted by C. J. H. Ropes in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton
Revievf for April, 1877, p. 331, and by Wicsclcr in the Jahrb. /. deutichc rhi-oi.^ 1877, P- 357-
Lightfoot regards it as admissible, St. Clement of Rome, Apjxjndix (London, 1877), P- 403-
t He renders: " But the Holy Scriptures, speaking of God in the flesh, and of the flesh of God
when he became man, do mention the blood and sufferings .Tnd resurrection of the body of God."
But if aifjia, k. T. A., is connected with nuiii<ir<i(\ what docs cdftKur depend on ? I venture to
think that the construction I have adopted is confirmed, and the whole passage illustrated, by c. 16
(Migne, col. it6o«). In answer to those who ask, " How did they crucify the Lord of glory, and
not crucify the Word ? " Athanasius says, " they nailed the body of the Word to the cross. He
was God who was rejected; rjdpKo^ 6e Oeov kqI xl'i'\f/c rb -a^^oc. Kat v fUhnror, Kal r/
ovnarnciq ytyovt."
326 CRITICAL ESSAYS
In saying Ibikt [be Scriptures nowhere a'ifa ^ni ^'X" mtp"^ wapa£ed£>iaiaiv,
AChanasius meani, as I unilersland him, that they have nuvherc used this uakol
eipressiun. As Dr. Humiihry remarks, "if '<rnv were the reading in aar tw
[Acts nx. j8], there would be menlion of the blood of God .i;^a oa/wif." {Comm.
OH lilt Jai Bf Ike Aposlh!. jJ eil., p, 164.) Mr. Darby ukcs the sonic view uf
the language of Atbaimsius in the note on Acts ex. i% in bis new translation of
the New Testament (3d ed., 1872). This view seenu la me to be confitiiied by
the whole tenor of the treatise against Apollinnris, as well as \fj many paricalar
passages. See, for example, lib. ii. c. 13 (Migne, col. 1153'') : Hue oii'i' ;>;;«-
^n, hri dtAt It iih aapnic naSin/ xal avaarit ; ei jiip fhi^ 6 iia eapKbf rraHljv tal
avaarA;, wa/h/rliii tprlTi mil rJir narfpa mi tAv BopitX^rnv, /hiii, c. tg (Migne.
col. 1165") ! a&Taiot oI<v 0! rf diiTirn avrav wiBo^ nTJjwiijtnrrr. See also lib. i.
°c- 3> 5i tli IS> 30; lib. iL ec. 3, 7, 11, 11. "The Scriptures," says Athanasius,
"M iihi TDV tiii6/iaTH( rnii ivSpiliTUii rS iriiflo[ tariiai, «oi ovx i''ep9'>iv'-
a IV' ... irrpi H r^ 8iitiiTBc rou Xijwii rf/v dTporrtrjjra «oi T^v a^paari-
TfTu 6iiohr)mnti " (lAi'i/. lib. ii. c. 18} 1 and neither he, not those with whom he
ai^es, seem ever to have thought of t!ie passage. Acts xx. 28, as oppoung this
view on the one hand, or favoring it on the other.
The use of the phrase rlifii on/i<i)r may require farther notice. Dr. Burton, in
discussing this passage uf Athanasios (u6i supra, p. il), makes an asseniun
which even his own Iranslalion does not justify. " Since that Father tells us," he
says, "that the Scriptures lio sprat of thi btami of Cud, we ask, where else do they
speak of it, except in Acts xx. aS?" — He does not otiterve that Athanasius rep-
resents the Scriptures as speaking, uot of the blood and suffering and resurrecliun
" of God" but " of theyfciA of God," or, according to bU rendering, " of the body
of God"; expressions which Alhanasius here and cUewfaere employs to denote
the flelh or body which, together with a human soul, i 6r/>( Jj/of assumed. He
does not mean that the Scriptures use even theM expressions; hm thai, in speak-
ing of the blood and pasuon and resorrectjon of Christ, they do not use the word
0ior, which is a leim Aix" oapudi, one that does not suggc...! or imply the flesh ur
human nature, bat such naines as j/iiimic which, as he says, is not given •f'X"
aapiiA;; that is, it implies the incarnation. Wre niv nS tjwrriJf 6m/ia <!ij-n 1^
aofHtir npeaiyrrai- imi^ aiaitoifiti rilM/ian tA irdrtof aai ifldiiQmc rm- piv Uab-
im ypi^avTOt. «.r.?., citing Acts xsvi. 23; 1 Cor. v. 7; ■ Tim. ii. 5, 6; 3 Tim. ij.
8, (Crs»/. ApelliHur. ii. a.) Thus he refers repeatedly to J Pet. iv, i, where we
read that " Chriil safSeitA for us in the flesh." (See Or, iii. cent. Arian. cc. 31,
34i Conl. Afollinar. ii. 18, 19.) It is just because the word Swr, without modi-
fication, does not, like xP"'^^% suggest " the flesh" , in other words, because it is
(i<,fa on^i^c, that Athanasiu's regards such expressions as fujiii ftab and h Sthi jrra-
6tti nai avisni as senseless and blaspbeiaons (see above, p. 315).
Before entering upon this subject, I wish to express my hearty thanks to Di.
William Wright, Professor of .Arabic in the Uiiiveisily of Cambridge, for very
important and inleresling information, moit kindly communicated, concerning the
Syriac and Aelhiopic MSS, in the British Museum. The siatemenu here tnade
it /->TTTT«/-.« r\C. ^r\T-. »»
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD ' 327
respecting their readings in Acts xx. 2S all rest on his authority. For a detailed
account of the MSS., his Catalogues are of course to be consulted.
Of the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, the following read in Acts xx. 28
" the church of Goi/" : —
Addit. 14473 (6th century); 171 21, f. 59* (6th century); 14472, f. 39** (6th
or 7th century); 18812, f. 35* (6th or 7th century); and 14470, f. i6o*» in its
later supplement (9th century). It is also found in Addit. 171 20 (see below) as
a late correction; and in 1 4681 (12th or 13th century) as a marginal variant, the
text reading " of Christ."
The reading " God " is also found, as is well known, in a Syriac Lectionary in
the Vatican Library, No. 21, dated A.D. 1042 (see Adler's uVovi Test. Ferss. Syr.
p. 16 ff.), in a MS. brought by Dr. Buchanan from Travancore, "Codex Malaba-
rcnsis," now in the Library of the University of Cambridge, No. i. i, 2, which
Dr. Lee considers 500 years old; and a MS. in the Bodleian Library, " Dawk.
23," which he regards as " much older." ♦ Dr. Lee admitted the reading " God "
into the text of his edition of the Syriac New Testament in 1816, on the authority
of these three MSS.
Of the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, the following read " the church of
Christ" (or the Messiah) : —
Addit. 1 71 2 O, "written in a good regular Estran^ela of the sixth century";
ahered "at a much later period into * of GotV " (Dr. Wright) ; 14448 (a.d. 699-
70o)» *"• '43*; 7157* ^- <2i», " a very fine MS. of the year a.d. 768" (Wright; see
also Scrivener, Introd., 2d ed., p. 279, n. 2); 14474 (9th century); 146S0 (12th
or 13th century); 17124 (a.d. 1234); and 14681 (12th or 13th century) in the
/<rx/, but with "of God" as a marginal variant. — The two MSS. numbered 7157
and 14448 are Nestorian.
Respecting the Syriac MSS. in other libraries, I have little information. We
may set down, I suppose, as supporting the reading "of Christ" the MSS. on
which the printed editions that have that reading were founded, or in which no
variation was noted by the collator; but our knowledge of them is imperfect.
Among these editions are those of Widmanstadt (1555), resting on one or two
Jacobite MSS.; the edition of Tremellius (1569), who used a Heidelberg MS.;
that of Lc Fevre de la Boderie (Fabricius Boderiartus) in the Antwerp Polyglot
(vol. V. 1572), in which he used a MS., dated 1188, brought by Postel from the
East; that of Rapheleng (1575), who used a "Cologne MS.," but Marsh thinks
this was probably identical with the one just mentioned; that of (iutbier (1664),
who had a MS. borrowed from L'Empereur; and that published by the Propa-
ganda at Rome, in 1703, from a copy made by Antonius Sionita in 161 1 from
three MSS. belonging to the College of Maronites. (See Hug's Introd.^ Part i,
§ 69, p. 215, Fosdick's trans.) Two Nestorian MSS. in the Vatican Library, No.
16 (al. 10), assigned by Assemani to the thirteenth century, and No. 17 (al. 9),
dated a.d. 15 10, described by Adier (^ithi supra ^ p. 20 ff.), also have that reading.
To these I can only add the MS. Ff. 2. 15 in the Library of the University of
Cambridge, Ridley's No. 14, who says that it is dated \.\>. 1524; and, what is
•See the letter of Dr. Lee in Hug's I nt rod net ion, trans, by Wait, i. 363-370, and his Prole-
gpimena in Bibl. Pol. Land, mitt., iii. § 4, c 14. I'm Dr. Payne Smith, in his Cat. 0/ Syr. MSS. ^
in the Bodleian Library, assigns " Dawk. 23 " to the fourteenth century.
328 CRITICAI. ESSAYS
note inpoTUnl, " a Syriac MS. of about looo yean old, belonging to Mr. Pdnet
of Magdalen Lullegc," monlioncd by the Kev. J. U. Munis {Sricct IVvrti af S.
Bphratm Ikt Syrian, OxtiiccJ, 1847, p. 395, nolcj.*
We have thus an iiiieresting question teipecting ihe primitive reading of the
PeihilQ in this piisage. A nvajoiily uf Ihe eliltit MSS., id fur as our infonnali'iii
■I present exlends, suppurt Ihe reading " the chuich of Cnd"; and .t- iiiM-in- is
found in nil Greeli MS., and in hut Tevi patriitic quotatiuni, ii it not probable thai
Oeov was oiiginally read liy the Syiiac IranBlalur?
Thii ii a queatiun on which I am not qualified lo eipri;ss a confident opinion;
but I will state the considcTBlion* which incline me lu a diilerert view.
(1) The MS. evidence for both Tendings exiendt back to the lixlh century;
but it is important \o milice that all the NeaitiriiLn MSS. have the reading
"Christ," while the Jacotiite ut Munophyute MSS. are divided. Ihe majority in
point of number, including one of the sixth century, also supporting that reading.
In the conlroversies of Ihe fifth ccnlury, when It became known Ihal some Greek
MSS. supported the reading <*'•»; and after the PhiioKcnian Syriac, prepared at
Ihe instance of a leading Monophy^ile hlshup, had adopted this reading in the
text, it is not strange Ihal some of Ihe Jacobilea or Monophy^tes should have
terrtdtd (as ihcy ihoughi) iheir copies of (he Pesiiiio by Ihe Greek or by ibe
Fhiloxenian, and thitt llius the reading "God " -ihould have found its way into a
considerable number of MSS., since il is a reading which would especially favor
the Monophysile doctrine.f Latin inHuence, so far as it went, would also lend
in the same direction. I lay no nlress upon ihe fact that Ihe Ne^turians (as
Sabarjesus at Ihe end of the tenth cenluty) ikar^J their adversaries nilh cor-
rupting this pass,ige and Heb. ii. 9 (see .^sscmani, Bibl. Ori<nt. iii. i. %Ai'i-
Such charges amount to lillle on one side or the other. But we must consider
the probabililiei. Had "God" been the original reading, ihe Ncstotians unre
not likely deliberately 10 change it to " Christ," which must have been found in
few, if any, Greek MSS-i Ihey would rather have substituted " Lord," which has
BO much very ancient aulhorily; but paswng this by, if Ihey had Ihus corrupted
the tent, how could Iheir reading, in opposition to Ihe text which had been handed
down (or centuries, hnve found its way inio a majority of Ihe MSS. of Ihe hostile
sect, after controversy had become billec?t
■ The pauagE of EphrKtn which gave occaiion 10 Mr. Moirit'i nou reult: "FlwCcam it [Ju-
diiun], Ihou Ihsim r«blel aJiihlthing ii ih; ckath odiI ihy blood 10 it: ii took [vpoa il] Ihe
Bkxxl of C«l, kUI h U tuicd avriy tmin IhineF . . . li hung God upon IIk CnH, and all etc-
■iBliViiMktaiechini." — ^^I^Mm i. ctHctriutigtki Faith, ctf. (Opp. Syi. el Lm. iii. iB^n
Ta Ihe MSS. mtntioiinl abave ace u> be added, ai I am inrormol by Mi. McOdlun, Col. Cotl.
Xov. op. Oion. ]J4, twelnh century, and four MSS. in the Bodleian Library. — one liHinceBrli
eeniury, one not rjiied, one oightteodi woiufy, one ninoi™nih ceniuiy. So ihe MS., ofaboui ihe
ninth nnlury, belonging 10 the Syiiin Pnitestuii Collie ai BeiiQli and ileuiilKd by Di. luac H,
Hill in ibe Pncttdimp e/ Un Amir. Oritnl. Sx. for Oct.. 1877. vol. a. p. cilvu.
T " lacobilajum codicet poiL edJum verijoncin PhQcHteaianam ad lexlum Giaecunt cmrigi
-Wieb
11, fiiJ. p
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD " 329
That the Nestorians were not the authors of the corruption appears probable
from the similar case of Heb. ii. 9, where their MSS. and some Jacobite MSS. also
read, " For he apart from God (;t^/;if ^^ov for x^f^^''- ^tfjv) tasted death for all
men"; while most of the Jacobite MSS. read, " For God himself , in his grace^
tasted death for all men." That the reading A'w/>if ^foi' was not invented by the
Nestorians is shown by the fact that it was current two hundred years before
they existed, being found in the MSS. of Origen and many other ancient Fathers
(see Tischendorf, and Bleek in ioc), whereas the Jacobite reading has in Greek
no MS. support.
It must be confessed, however, that the authority of the Synod of Diamper is
against them. In the Acts of that Council (a.d. 1599) the Nestorians are
charged with maliciously corrupting both Heb. ii. 9 and Acts xx. 28. *' Nam ipsi
Nestoriani, a Diabolo acti, veriiatem Catholicam scilicet Deum pro nobis passum
sanguinemque fudisse fateri nolunt." (Mansi, Concil. Coll. Nova seu SnppUmcn-
tuMty etc., torn. vi. col. 24.) That very learned and judicious body also restored
to the Syriac text the passage about the Woman taken in Adulter}', the reading
"the love of C<?</, because he laid down his life for us," i John iii. 16, the Three
Heavenly Witnesses, I John v. 7, 8, and some other gems from the Clementine
Vulgate.*
Should it be urged that the majority of the oldest MSS. in the British Museum
collection support the reading **God," though very ancient MSS. are found on
both sides, I would call attention to the fact that most or all of these MSS. come
from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian desert, a Jacobite estab-
lishment, and that what is really remarkable is the fact that they do not all have
that reading.f The tendency to alter the reading "Christ" to " God " is illus-
trated by the MSS. Addit. 17120 and 146S1; see above, and note the changes in
Rich's MS. 7157, described by Tregelles {Textual Criticism, p. 262, n. 2).
(2) The genuineness of the reading '* Christ " is favored by its existence in the
Erpenian Arabic, made from the Peshito.
(3) It is also favored by the fact that all or most of the earlier Fathers of
Syria and its neighborhood, as Eustathius (^f Antiuch, Theodore of Mopsuestia,
Theodoret, Nestorius, Amphilochius of Iconium, the Gregories, and Fulherius of
Tyana, appear to have been averse to such expressions as " the blood" or ** the
sufferings of God "; see p. 319 f. Perhaps Kphraem is an exception (see the note
quoted above) ; but he was a poet, and fond of extravagant and paradoxical
language. Moreover, Sabarjesus quotes him as saying, " Deus Verbum ne(iue
passus, neque mortuus est." (Assemani, Bibl. Orient, iii. i. 542.)
Such being the state of the case. I incline i>retty strongly to the belief that
" Christ " was the original reading of the Peshito in Acts xx. 28.
The Aethiopic version as printed in Walton's Polyglot, as has already been
•Sec La Croze, Hist, du Christianisme des Indes, 1758, i. 341 ff.
t ** Ncque td mirum est, quod lacobitarum potissimum libri in Europam translati sunt. Etenim
qui in Nitriae deserta confugerunt ibique in monasterio Marine Dciparac sedcs fixcrunt, Monophy-
sitae erant et codices attulcrunt ex lacobitarum monasicriis: dcinJc plus omnino commercii fuit
ecclesiae occidentali cum lacobitis quam cum Ncstorianis, qui intcnoris .Asi.ie tr.ictus incolebant."
— ^ Wichelhaus, ubi sttp.y p. 147.
33°
CUmCAL ESSAYS
mentioned (see p,305 f,), uses n uoid regarded by Griesbach, Tiscbendar/. and
others as amtiiguous, but which seenis to me lo support Ihe reading "IJud."* But
the Polyglot text (from the Komaa ediliun at 1548-49) represenls but a iiagle
Mri., parts of wMch in the Acts were defective, and supplied hy the native editors
from llie Greek or the Vulgaie. Thomas Pell Plait's edition, printed for the
British and Foreign Bible Society in lS3o,winn1ao made, in (he Acts and Epistles,
from a single MS. (Tregelles, Tifx'mrl Criririin.p. 3x6.) This edilinn rendt
"Christ." In this uncertainly about the text, the following account, for which I
am indebted to Dr. Wright, of the readings of the Aethinpic MSS. in the British
Museum, is of special interest : —
Orient. 526, f. 67»; 527, f III*; 519, f. gj"; 530.^39"; and 531, f. 78*, aetee J
in rending "church of CArist," Or 531, f. 116'', omits the word Ctn'i/altogethcr.fl
Or 528, r. l8», has "church of Cm/," using the wt
" These MSS.." Dr. Wright remarks. " are itll of the seventeenth and eighteenth ■^
centuries; but we have none older in the British Museum."
I would add that Dr. Ughitoot has kindly examined for me the only 01
the Memphilic MSS. in the British Museum containing the Acts, or at least the I
onlv one accesiiible at the time, vii. Orient. 424, and states thai " the reading ik %
clearly rov nvplov,"
POSTSCRIPT.
On p. 304, note *, the MS. of the Sfieculum, published by Caidinal Mai, igi
spoken of as " perhaps the oldcnt copy thai cunta
V. 7." I have not yet had the opportunity of examining Ziegler's llalitfrag,
dtr PatilinisduH Britfi nrbsl BruehslUtiiH eiiur V9rliieroit}"iiiamsilun I
ifl:ung il. trUen yehannitbriefei uki PcrgumtntUalltTH dtr eketnaligin J
uiigir Sli/lsiibliolhfk (Marbnrg. 1876), but in the Thepl. LiUralurblaU for J
15, 1876. there ii an interesting notice of the volume by Dr. Reusch, who si
that the Freiwng MS. mentioned in the title just Ei»^n c
sage in the following form (supplying the gaps) : — -
" el spiritus e[st testimonium,] quia spiritus est Veritas.
qui testificantur] in terra: spiritus etaqua et 5a[nguis, ct Ire!
lur in uelo : Pater e[t Verhum el Spiritus ssnctus, et hi] tre
As this Freising fragment of the Old Latin version (conl
v. 31) is said to be "of the seventh century at the latest," it is probably «
to the distinction of being the oldest Latin copy in which the Three Kea
Witnesses have yet appeared. The Iji Cava MS. of the ^'ulgati
speculum, contains the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans, is, indeed, r
when Kvptn^ W3a regarded by ihi
cpRHmcative af //^dc. dk u^mp
fl-ri^: in vtr. 16, for »-(.,! K)f ;
ON THE READING "CHURCH OF GOD " 33 1
Cardinal Mai to the seventh century; but Tischendorf assigns it to the eighth,
and Ziegler, as the result of a special investigation, would place it even later.
In regard to the authorship of the Speculum, the opinion expressed above
(p. 3031.), and in the American edition of Orme's Memoir of the Controversy
respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses (pp. 187, 188), is confirmed by Ziegler,
who remarks, as quoted and indorsed by Dr. Reusch, that " the Speculum is not
by Augustine, but by an unknown, probably African author; and that it is not
even certain whether he took this verse with the Heavenly Witnesses from a MS.
of the Bible, or added it himself; at any rate, the citation in the Speculum is of
no more importance than that in Vigilius." As the passage was quoted by Vigilius
Thapsensis (cir. 484) and by Fulgentius (507-533), we need not be surprised to
find it in a Latin MS. of the sixth century.
XVI.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5.
[From \^t Journal of th* Society 0/ Biblical LiUrature and Exfgttit for 1881.] *
We shall understand better the passage to be discussed,
if we consider its relation to what precedes and follows and
the circumstances under which it was written.
In the first eight chapters of the Epistle to the Romans,
the Apostle has set forth the need and the value of the
gospel as "the power of God unto salvation to every one
that bclie^oeth ; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." In
view of the present blessings and the glorious hopes of the
Christian believer, he closes this part of the Epistle with
an exultant song of triumph.
But the doctrine of Paul was in direct opposition to the
strongest prejudices of the Jews and their most cherished
expectations. It placed them on a level, as to the condi-
tions of salvation, with the despised and hated Gentiles.
The true Messiah, the king of Israel, the spiritual king
of men, had come ; but the rulers of their nation had
crucified the Lord of glory, and the great mass of the people
had rejected him. They had thus set themselves in direct
opposition to God. They had become IwdBum arrb roi .vp/crroi,
outcasts from the Messiah and his kingdom. Christians, a
large majority of them Gentiles by birth, were now the true
Israel. No rite of circumcision, no observance of the Jew-
ish Law, was required, as the condition of acceptance with
God and the enjoyment of the Messianic blessings ; no sac-
rifice but self-sacrifice : the only condition was fixith, as Paul
uses the term, — 7^ practical belief and trust in Christ, and
*[The article by Dr. Dwighi, lo which Professor Abbot makes frequent reference below, and
which rh'fends the opposite opinioti to that nniiitait-.cd by Dr. Abbot, may be found in the same
number of the above-named journal, pp. 22-55 ]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 333
thus m God revealed in his paternal character ; a faith that
carried with it the affections and will, TrioTtc sc aydirrj^ hepywuivr/.
How could these things be? How was this gospel of
Paul to be reconciled with the promises of God to the " holy
nation" ? how with his justice, wisdom, and goodness? Had
God cast off his people, " Israel his servant, Jacob his
chosen, the seed of Abraham his friend " ? These are the
great questions which the Apostle answers in the ninth,
tenth, and eleventh chapters of this Epistle. The first five
verses are to be regarded as a conciliatory introduction to
his treatment of this subject, on which he had so much to
say that was not only hard for the unbelieving Jews, but
for Jewish Christians, to understand and accept.
The unbelieving Jews regarded the Apostle as an apos-
tate from the true religion and as an enemy of their race.
Five times already he had received from them forty stripes
save one ; he had been " in perils from his own country-
men " at Damascus, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium and
Lystra, at Thessalonica, Beroea, and Corinth, — often in
peril of his life. By a great part of the believing Jews, he
was regarded with distrust and aversion. (See Acts xxi. 20,
21.) His doctrines were indeed revolutionary. Though he
was about to go to Jerusalem to carry a liberal contribution
from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia to the poor
Christians in that city, he expresses in this Epistle great
anxiety about the reception he should meet with (anxiety
fully justified by the result), and begs the prayers of the
brethren at Rome in his behalf (Rom. xv. 30-32). As the
Jews hated Paul, they naturally believed that he hated them.
These circumstances explain the exceedingly strong as-
severation of his affection for his countrymen and of his
deep sorrow for their estrangement from God, with which
this introduction begins. So far from being an enemy of
his people, he could make any sacrifice to win them to
Christ. They were his brethren, his kinsmen, as to the
flesh. He gloried in sharing with them the proud name of
Israelite. He delights to enumerate the magnificent privi-
leges by which God had distinguished them from all other
334 CRITICAL ESSAYS
nations, — " the adoption, and the glory, and the giving of
the Law, the covenants, the temple service, and the prom-
ises." Theirs were the fathers ; and, from among them, as
the crowning distinction of all, the Messiah was born, the
supreme gift of God's love and mercy not to the Jews alone,
but to all mankind. All God's dealings with his chosen
people were designed to prepare the way, and had prepared
the way, for this grand consummation. How natural that,
when, in his rapid recital of their historic glories, the Apos-
tle reaches this highest distinction of the Jews and greatest
blessing of God's mercy to men, he should express his over-
flowing gratitude to God as the Ruler over all ; that he
should " thank God for his unspeakable gift " ! I believe
that he has done so, and that the fifth verse of the passage
we are considering should be translated, " whose are the
fathers and from whom is the Messiah as to the flesh : he
who is over all, God, be blessed forever. Amen," or "he
who is God over all be blessed forever. Amen." The dox-
ology springs from the same feeling and the same view of
the gracious providence of God which prompted the fuller
outburst at the end of the eleventh chapter, where, on com-
pleting the treatment of the subject which he here intro-
duces, the Apostle exclaims : ** O the depth of the riches and
wisdom and knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are his
judgments and untraceable his ways ! . . . For from him,
and through him, and to him, are all things : to him be
{or is) the glory forever. Amen."
I believe that there are no objections to this construction
of the passage which do not betray their weakness when
critically examined ; and that the objections against most of
the other constructions which have been proposed are fatal.
The passage is remarkable for the different ways in which
it has been and may be punctuated, and for the consequent
variety of constructions which have been given it. The
Greek is as follows : —
. . . Kill t^ (l)i> it XfurjTor 70 Kwa ndpKa o ijv irrl Travruv (ko^ ev'/Xfy-TiTdc fif tw^
a'tfovn^. 'Aiii/v.
It grammatically admits of being punctuated and con-
strued in at least seven different ways.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 335
1. Placing a comma after ffap^a, and also after '^foc, we may
translate the last clause, " who (pr he who) is God over all,
blessed for ever."
2. Putting the second comma after -aiTwy instead of ^^k \
"who (or he who) is over all, God blessed for ever."
3. With a comma after :rarrwv and also after ^for, " who (pr
he who) is over all, God, blessed for ever." So Morus, Gess
(Christi Person imd Werk, ii. i. 207 f., Basel, 1878).
4. Placing a comma after ow^, and also after ^^f<5f,— '*He
who Is, God over all, blessed for ever." See Wordsworth's
note, which, however, is not consistent throughout ; and
observe the mistranslation at the end of his quotation from
Athanasius (Orat. cont. Arianos, i. § 24, p. 338).*
5. Placing a comma after <T'^i/JK« and a colon after rravrwy,
the last part of the verse may be rendered : *• and from
whom is the Messiah as to the flesh, who (or he who) is over
all : God be blessed for ever. Amen."
6. Placing a colon after aa/^Acn, f^fOf may be taken as predi-
cate, thus: **he who is over all is God, blessed for ever";
so Professor B. H. Kennedy, D.D., Canon of Ely ; or thus,
"he who was over all being (literally^ was) God, blessed for
ever." So Andrews Norton.
7. With a colon after G(n)Ka, 6 uv 1-1 iraiTuv Otog may be taken
as the subject, and (vAoyrr<k as predicate, with the ellipsis of
«7 or ta-iv, making the last part of the verse a doxology,
thus: **he who is over all, God, be blessed (or is to be
praised) for ever " ; or ** he who is God over all be blessed
{or is to be praised) for ever " ; or " God, who is over all, be
blessed (or is to be praised) for ever."
I pass over other varieties of translation and interpreta-
tion, depending on the question whether rravrtM' is to be taken
as masculine or neuter, and on the wider or narrower applica-
tion of the word in either case.
In Nos. 1-4 inclusive, it will be seen that the 0 wr, with
all that follows, including the designation (kd^, is referred to
* Perhaps I ought to add here as a curiosity a construction proposed in the Record news-
paper, in an article copied in Christian Of>inion and Revisionist for March n, 18S2, p. 222.
The writer would translate, '* Of whom as concerning the flesh Chnst came, who is over all, God.
Blened be he for ever ! Amen. "
336 CRITICAL ESSAYS
6 xptoroc; in Nos. 6 and 7, 6uv introduces an independent sen-
tence, and f^tor denotes God, the Father. No. 5 refers the
first part of the sentence in debate to 0 ;rp«ffr<5c, the last part
to God.
The question of chief interest is whether in this passage
the Apostle has called Christ God. Among those who hold
that he has done so, the great majority adopt one or the other
of the constructions numbered i and 2 ; and it is to these,
and especially to No. 2, followed both in King James's ver-
sion and the Revised Version (text), that I shall give special
attention. Among those who refer the last part of the sen-
tence to God, and not Christ, the great majority of scholars
adopt either No. 5 or No. 7. I have already expressed my
preference for the latter construction, and it is generally
preferred by those who find here a doxology to God.
I. We will first consider the objections that have been
urged against the construction which makes the last part of
the sentence, beginning with « <^v, introduce a doxology to
God. I shall then state the arguments which seem to me
to favor this construction, and at the same time to render
the constructions numbered i to 4 each and all untenable.
Other views of the passage will be briefly noticed. Some
remarks will be added on the history of its interpretation,
though no full account of this will be attempted.
I. It is objected that a doxology here is wholly out of
place ; that the Apostle is overwhelmed with grief at the
Jewish rejection of the Messiah and its consequences, and
" an elegy or funeral discourse cannot be changed abruptly
into a hymn." He is, indeed, deeply grieved at the unbelief
and blindness of the great majority of his countrymen ; but
his sorrow is not hopeless. He knows all the while that "the
won! of God hath not failed," that '* God hath not cast off
his people whom he foreknew," that at last "all Israel shall
be saved " ; and nothing seems to me more natural than the
play of mingled feelings which the passage presents, — grief
for the present temporary alienation of his countrymen from
Christ, joy and thanksgiving at the thought of the priceless
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 337
blessings of which Christ was the minister to man and in
which his countrymen should ultimately share.
Flatt, Stuart, and others put the objection in a very
pointed form. They represent a doxology as making Paul
say, in effect: "The special privileges of the Jews have
contributed greatly to enhance the guilt and punishment of
the Jewish nation ; God be thanked that he has given them
such privileges ! " But they simply read into the passage
what is not there. There is nothing in the context to sug-
gest that the Apostle is taking this view of the favor which
God has shown the Jewish nation. He is not denouncing
his countrymen for their guilt in rejecting the Messiah, and
telling them that this guilt and its punishment are aggra-
vated by the privileges they have abused. So tender is he
of their feelings that he does not even name the cause of
his grief, but leaves it to be inferred. He is assuring his
countrymen, who regarded him as their enemy, of the
sincerity and strength of his love for them. They are his
brethren: the very name '* Israelite" is to him a title of
honor;* and he recounts in detail, certainly not in the
manner of one touching a painful subject, the glorious
distinctions which their nation had enjoyed through the
favor of God. Calvin, who so often in his commentaries
admirably traces the connection of thought, here hits the
nail on the head : " Haec dignitatis clogia tcstimonia sunt
avioris, Non enim solemus adeo benigne loqui, nisi de iis
quos amamus." f
At the risk of being tedious, I will take some notice of
Dr. Gifford's remarks in his recent and valuable Commen-
tary on the Epistle to the Romans.^ He says: "Paul's
anguish is deepened by the memory of their privileges, most
of all by the thought that their race gave birth to the Divine
Saviour, whom they have rejected." But in Paul's enum-
*See ch. xi. i; 2 Cor. xi. 22.
t The new which I have taken accords with that of Dr. Hodge. He sajrs: "The object of
the Apostle in the introduction to this chapter, contained in the first five verses, is to assure the
Jcw» of his love and of his respect for their peculiar privileges." Comm. on tJu Ep, to tkt
Romuuut new ed. (1864), note on ix. 4, p. 469; sec also p. 463.
}[Wiih the paragraphs which follow compare the additional comments in Essay XVII.,
p. 4*$' 1
33«
eration of the privileges of the Jews he has in \'iew nol
merely their present condition, but their whole past history,
illuminated as it had been by light from heaven. Will it be
seriously maintained that Paul did not regard the peculiar
privileges which the Jewish nation had enjoyed for so many
ages as gifts of God's goodness for which eternal gratitude
was due? But '"his anguish is deepened most of all by the
thought that their race gave birth to the Divine Saviour,
whom they have rejected " ! * Paul's grief for his unbelieving
countrymen, then, had extinguished his gratitude for the
inestimable blessings which he personally owed to Christ :
it had extinguished his gratitude for the fact that the God
who rules over all had sent his Son to be the Saviour of the
world ! The dark cloud which hid the light just then from
the mass of his countrymen, but which he believed was soon
to pass away, had blotted the sun from the heavens. The
advcii; of Christ was no cause for thanksgiving: he could
only bow his head in anguish, deepened most of all by the
thought that the Messiah had sprung from the race to which
he himself belonged.
" His anguish is deepened by the memory of their privi-
leges." Paul does not say this; and is Dr. Gifford quite
sure that this was the way in which these privileges pre-
sented themselves to his mind ? May we not as naturally
suppose that the thought of God's favor to his people in the
past, whom he had so often recalled from their wanderings,
afforded some ground for the hope that they had not stum-
bled so as to fall and perish, but that their present aliena-
tion from Christ, contributing, as it had done, in the over-
ruling providence of God, to the wider and more rapid
spread of the gospel among the Gentiles, was only tempo-
rary ? If we will let Paul be his own interpreter instead of
reading unnatural thoughts between his lines, we shall take
this view. " God hath not cast off iiis people, whom he
foreknew,"' " whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the
covenants, and the promises." " A hardening in part hath
befallen Israel," but only "until the fulness of the Gentiles
be come in ; and so {or then) all Israel shall be saved." It
ox THE COXSTRUCTION OF ROMAXS IX. 5 339
is not for nothing that ** theirs are the fathers " ; that they
had such ancestors as Abraham, " the friend of God," and
Isaac, and Jacob. " As touching the gospel, they are ene-
mies for the sake of the Gentiles, but as touching the elec-
tion," as the chosen people of God, " they are beloved for
the fathers' sake." " If the first fruit is holy, so is the
lump ; and, if the root is holy, so are the branches." " God
doth not repent of his calling and his gifts." " God hath
shut up all [Jews and Gentiles] unto disobedience, that he
might have mercy upon all." For the ancient prophecy is
now fulfilled : the Deliverer hath come out of Zion ; and
"he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." ** O the
depth of the riches," etc. Such were the thoughts which
the past privileges of the Jews, in connection with the ad-
vent of Christ, as we see from the eleventh chapter of this
Epistle, actually suggested to the mind of Paul.*
Can we, then, reasonably say that, when, in his grand
historic survey and enumeration of the distinctive privileges
of the Jews, the Apostle reaches the culminating point in
the advent of the Messiah, sprung from that race, a devout
thanksgiving to God as the beneficent ruler over all is
wholly out of place } Might we not rather ask. How could
it be repressed }
We may then, I conceive, dismiss the psychological objec-
tion to the doxology, on which many have laid great stress,
as founded on a narrow and superficial view of what we may
reasonably suppose to have been in the Apostle's mind.
And I am happy to see that so fair-minded and clear-sighted
a scholar as Professor Dwight takes essentially the same
view of the matter. (See Joiiru. Soc. BibL Lit., etc., as
above, p. 41.)
2. A second objection to a doxology here is founded on
the relation of the first five verses of the chapter to what
follows. A doxology, it is thought, unnaturally breaks the
connection between the sixth verse and what precedes.
* This appreciative recapitulation of the distinctions of the Jewish people would also serve to
chcdc the tendency of the Gentile Christians to self-conceit, and would lead them tu recognize the
important part of the despised Hebrews in the drama of the world's history-. It would virtually
•ay to them, '* Glory not over the branches; but if thou £loriest, thou bearest not the root, but
the root thee " (Rom. xi. i8).
340 CRITICAL E5SAVS ^^^^^^H
This argument is rarely adduced, and I should hardly have
thought it worthy of notice, were it not that Dr. Dwight
seems to attach some weight to it, though apparently not
much, (See as above, p. 41 f.)
The first five verses of the chapter, as we have seen, are
a conciliatory introduction to the treatment of a delicate
and many-sided subject. This treatment begins with the
sixth verse, which is introduced by the particle ■''. " but."
Whether the last part of verse 5 is a doxology to God. or
simply the climax of the privileges of the Jews, the ^( cannot
refer to what immcduttcly precedes. In either case, it refers
to what is implied in verses 2 and 3, and meets the most:
prominent objection to the doctrine set forth by the Apostle
in the preceding part of the Epistle. The thought is, The
present condition of the great mass of my countrymen is
indeed a sad one, and not the Jews as a nation, but Chris-
tians, are the true people of God ; but it is not as if the
promises of God have failed. (Comp. iii. 3, 4.) This sim-
ple statement of the connection of verse 6 with what pre-
cedes seems to me ali that is needed to meet the objection.
The argument that a doxology is inconsistent with the
Apostle's state of mind has already been answered.
3, A third objection, urged by many, is founded on the
alleged abruptness of the doxology and the absence of any
mention of God in what precedes. Some also think that a
doxology here would need to be introduced by the particle ■'*.
I cannot regard this objection as having any force. It is
quite in accordance with the habit of Paul thus to turn aside
suddenly to give e.'ipression to his feelings of adoration and
gratitude toward God." See Rom. i. 25 ; vii. 25 (where the
genuineness of fii is very doubtful) ; 2 Cor. ix. 15, where
note the omission of a in the genuine text; 1 Tim. i. 17,
where the doxology is suggested by the mention of Christ.
11 buti Piuli. qiwd al
t, and « Ac
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 34I
The doxology xi. 36, as has already been noticed (p. 334), is
completely parallel in thought. Far more abrupt is the
doxology 2 Cor. xi. 31, oOmc kqI 7:aryi> rnv KVf)Uiv 'It/fjtw o/'tUr, o fji'
e'r/n>TfTor fif roir n'tdva^^ on ov \\*hi'6ount^ where the ascription of praise
is interposed between oUtv and on in an extraordinary manner.
It is very strange that it should be urged as an argument
. against the doxology that God is not mentioned in the pre-
ceding context. The name does not occur, but almost every
word in verses 4 and 5 suggests the thought of God. So, to
a Jew, the very name " Israelites " ; so *'the adoption and
the glory and the giving of the Law and the covenants and
the service and the promises " ; and so, above all, o ,r/>'<^r«r,
the Anointed of God, the Messiah : as to the flesh, sprung
from the Jews ; but, as to his holy spirit, the Son of God,
the messenger of God's love and mercy, not to the Jews
alone, but to all the nations of the earth.
That the mention of Christ in such a connection as this
should bring vividly to the mind of the Apostle the thought
of God and his goodness, and thus lead to a doxology, is
simply in accordance with the conception of the relation of
Christ to God which appears everywhere in this Epistle, and
in all his Epistles. While Christ, <V w -h -(iirr/, is the medium
of communication of our spiritual blessings, Paul constantly
views them in relation to God, ^^ oi ra Travm, as the original
Author and Source. The gospel is "the gospel of God,'*
"a power of God unto salvation" ; the righteousness which
it reveals is "a righteousness which is of God"; it is God
who has set forth Christ as i/.nfjr//inov, who **commendcth his
love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us," who "spared not his own Son, but freely gave
him for us all " ; it is " God who raised him from the dead " ;
"what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the
fiesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and on account of sin," has done ; the glory to which
Christians are destined, as sons and heirs of God and joint
heirs with Christ, is "the glory of God"; in short, "all
things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself through
Jesus Christ," and "nothing shall separate us from the love
of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
342 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Though no one can doubt that Paul was full of love and
gratitude to Christ, so that we might expect frequent ascrip-
tions to him of praise and glory, it is a remarkable fact that
there is no doxology or thanksgiving to Christ in any of his
Epistles except those to Timothy, the genuineness of which
has been questioned by many modern scholars. These
Epistles, at any rate, present marked peculiarities of style
and language, and, if written by Paul, were probably written
near the close of his life. And in them there is but one
doxology to Christ, and that not absolutely certain, on ac-
count of the ambiguity of the word «*>of (2 Tim. iv. 18);
while the thanksgiving is a simple expression of thankful-
ness (i Tim. i. 12), xm"^ '^x^, gratias habco i^oX. ago). One
reason for this general absence of such ascriptions to Christ
on the part of the Apostle seems to have been that habit of
mind of which I have just spoken, and which makes it a
priori more probable that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 belongs
to God. But this is a matter which will be more appropri-
ately treated in another place.
As to the '^f, which Schultz insists would be necessary,*
one needs only to look fairly at the passage to see that it
would be wholly out of place ; that a doxology to God in-
volves no ajitithctic contrast between God and Christ, as
Schultz and some others strangely imagine. Nor does <'*', as
a particle of transition, seem natural here, much less re-
quired. It would make the doxology too formal.
4. It is urged that " ^ 'jj*, grammatically considered, is more
easily and naturally construed in connection with xn'f^'^k than
as the subject of a new and doxological clause." (See Dr.
D wight's article, as above, pp. 24, 25.)
Much stronger language than this is often used. Dr.
Hodge, for example, assuming that '* ''n- must be equivalent
to 'V/rr/, says that the interpretation which refers the words
to Christ is the only one "which can, with the least regard to
the rules of construction, be maintained." {Coinm, in loc,
p. 472.)
Dr. Dwight, whose article is in general so admirable for
' J ihrb'tchfr f:'tr dfutiche Theoi., i56S. xiii. 4-0 f., 477.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 343
the fairness, clearness, and moderation of its statements,
has expressed himself here in such a way that I cannot feel
perfectly sure of his meaning. He says, speaking of the
connection of ouv with f^ xp^<fT6^^ "This construction of 6wv, in
cases similar to that which is here presented, is the almost
universal one, both in the New Testament and in other
Greek." If "cases similar to that which is here presented"
means cases in which 6 wy (or any participle with the article)
is preceded by a noun to which it may be easily joined,
while it also admits of being regarded as the subject of
an independent sentence, and it is affirmed that, in such
grammatically ambiguous cases, it almost invariably does
refer to the preceding subject, — the argument is weighty, if
the assertion is true. But not even one such case has ever,
to my knowledge, been pointed out. Till such a case, or,
rather, a sufficient number of such cases to serve as the
basis of a reasonable induction, shall be produced, I am
compelled to consider the statement as resting on no evi-
dence whatever. Yet that this is what is meant by " similar
cases " seems necessarily to follow from what is said further
on (/. r., p. 24) about "the peculiarity of Rom. ix. 5." Cases
in which 6 uv^ grammatically considered, can only refer to a
preceding subject are certainly not " similar cases to that
which is here presented," in which, as Dr. Dwight admits,
"there is, at the most, only a presumption in favor of this
construction of the clause as against the other" (/. r., p. 25).
But, if Dr. Dwight's statement means, or is intended to
imply, that o^v with its adjuncts, or, in general, the partici-
ple with the article, almost universally forms a descriptive
or a limiting clause referring to a preceding subject, while
its use as the independent subject of a sentence is rare, the
assertion is fatally incorrect. The latter use is not only
very common, but in the New Testament, at least, is more
frequent than the former. We have (a) o wi-, or oi di^reg, in the
nominative, as the subject of an independent sentence, Matt.
xii. 30; Mark xiii. 16 (text, rec.) ; Luke vi. 3 (t. r., Tisch.) ;
xi. 23; Johniii. 31; vi. 46 ; viii. 47; ix. 40; Acts xxii. 9;
Rom. viii. 5, 8. Contra {b), referring to a preceding subject,
344 CRITICAL ESSAYS
and forming, as I understand it, an appositional clause, John
i. i8 ; iii. 13 (text, rec.) ; (Acts v. 17) ; 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Rev. v.
5 (t. r.) ; a limiting clause, John xi. 31 ; xii. 17 ; Acts xi. i.
To these may be added 2 Cor. v. 4, Eph. ii. 13, where the
clause is in apposition with or describes jy/rf/c or v^\^^ ex-
pressed or understood ; and perhaps John xviii. 37 (rraf 6 wp,
«. r. >.).*
It is uncertain whether Col. iv. 1 1 belongs under {a) or
{b). See Meyer in loc. For the examples of w*', I have re-
lied on Bruder's Concordance, p. 255, No. VI. But as
there is nothing peculiar in the use of this particular parti-
ciple with the article so far as the present question is con-
cerned, I have, with the aid of Bruder, f examined the occur-
rences of the participle in general, in the nominative, with
the article, in the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle to the
Romans, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. I find
in Matthew eighty-six examples of its use {a) as the subject,
or in very few cases (nine) as the predicate, of a verb ex-
pressed or understood, and only thirty-eight of its use {b) in
a descriptive or limiting clause, annexed to a preceding sub-
ject; in the Epistle to the Romans, twenty-eight examples
of the former kind against twelve of the latter ; and in the
First Kpistle to the Corinthians, thirty-nine of the former
against four of the latter, one of these being a false reading. J
In general, it is clear that the use of the participle with
the article as the subject of an independent sentence, in-
stead of being exceptional in the New Testament, is far
more common than its use as an attributive. Nor is this
strange; for ^ iw properly signifies not *' who is," but "he
• The examples of u i,v and other participles with rrar belong, perhaps, quite as properly
under {a). Without —i[i\ the i, ,'>r, K. r. /. is the subject of the sentence, and the meaning is
the same ; 7:dc only strengthens the u i)x\ See Kriiger, Gr, SprachUhre, sie Aufl. (1875}, § 50»
4, Anm. I.
t Concordantiae, etc., p. 5S6, No, 2 ; ]>. 59S, No. VII. i ; comp. p. 603, No. VIII. ; p. 604,
No. IX.
X In this reckoning, to prevent any cavil, I have included under {b) all the examples of T'ic «)
or —nvTic ol, of which there arc eight in Matthew, two in Romans, and one in 1 Cor. ; also, the
ci^es of the article and paniciitle witli rr/- or I tirir as the subject of the verb, expressed or under*
btcod, of which there are four in Maiiluw and seven in Romans. I have not counted on either
side Rom. viii. 3^, 34, and ix. 33: the first two, translated according to the text of the Revised
Version, belong under (.1 , accunl.r.i? to its margin, under (^) ; Rom. ix. 33, if we omit Tuf. with
all the critical editors, would al^o belong under {a).
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 345
who is." The force of the article is not lost.* While in
some of its uses it may seem interchangeable with k '^on, it
differs in this : that it is generally employed either in appo-
sitional or in limiting clauses, in distinction from descriptive
or additive clauses ; while oc with the finite verb is appro-
priate for the latter. For examples of the former, see John
i. 18, xii. 17; of the latter, Rom. v. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 4. To
illustrate the difference by the passage before us : if © w^
here refers to o xmoroq, the clause would be more exactly
translated as appositional, not ''who is," etc., but '' he who
is God over all, blessed forever," implying that he was well
known to the readers of the Epistle as God, or at least
marking this predicate with special emphasis ; while <V *<7r/y
would be more appropriate if it were simply the purpose of
the Apostle to predicate deity of Christ, and would also be
perfectly unambiguous.
There is nothing, then, either in the proper meaning of b uv
or in its usage which makes it more easy and natural to refer
it to 6 xn^^'k than to take it as introducing an independent
sentence. It is next to be observed that there are circum-
stances which make the latter construction easy, and which
distinguish the passage from nearly all others in which o uv,
or a participle with the article, is used as an attributive. In
all the other instances in the New Testament of this use of
6^v or nlbvTtq in the nominative, with the single exception of
the parenthetic insertion in 2 Cor. xi. 31 (see above, page
341), it immediately follows the subject to which it relates.
The same is generally truj of other examples of the parti-
ciple with the article. (The strongest cases of exception
which I have noticed arc John vii. 50 and 2 John 7.) But
here o dv is separated from o .xi>"^''k by rb mra aapKa, which in
reading mnst be followed by a pause, — a pause which is
lengthened by the special emphasis given to the Ka-^'t c<'ii>ku by
the ro;f and the sentence which precedes is complete in
•
**' Participles take the article only when some relation already known or especially note-
worthy (u ftti, <r»tif>P« g^i) is indicated, and consequently the idea expressed by the participle
b to be made more prominent."— Winer, Gram, jte Aufl., § 20, 1. b. a. c. p. 127 (p. 134, Thayer).
t H 6 ;j'p/<TT<5f were placed after snra capKn, the ambiguity would not, indeed, be wholly
removed, but it would b: much more natural to refer the b in' to Christ than it is now. Perhaps
the feeling of this led Cynl of Alexandria to make this transposition as he does in quoting the
346 CRITICAL ESSAYS
itself grammatically, and requires nothing further logically ;
for it was only as to the flesh that Christ was from the Jews.
On the other hand, as we have seen (p. 334), the enumeration
ot blessings which immediately precedes, crowned by the
inestimable blessing of the advent of Christ, naturally sug-
gests an ascription of praise and thanksgiving to God as the
Being who rules over all ; while a doxology is also suggested
by the 'A"vv at the end of the sentence.* From every point
of view, therefore, the doxological construction seems easy
and natural. The ellipsis of the verb tori or «»? in such cases
is simply according to rule. The construction numbered 6
above (see p. 335) is also perfectly easy and natural gram-
matically (see 2 Cor. i. 21, v. 5 ; Heb. iii. 4).
The naturalness of a pause after (rnpua is further indicated
by the fact that we find a point after this word in all our
oldest MSS. that testify in the case, — namely. A, B, C, L, —
and in at least eight cursives, though the cursives have been
rarely examined with reference to their punctuation.f
It has been urged, that, if the writer did not intend that
6 <jv should be referred to Christ, he would have adopted
another construction for his sentence, which would be ex-
posed to no such misapprehension. But this argument is
a boomerang. Mr. Beet in his recent Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (2d ed., p. 271 f.) well says, on the
other hand : —
Had Paul thought fit to deviate from his otherwise unvarying cus-
tom, and to speak of Christ as Goi/, he must have done so with a seri-
ous and set purpose of asserting the divinity of Christ. And, if so, he
would have used words which no one could misunderstand. In a similar
passage against the Emperor Julian, who maintained that " neither Paul dared to call Christ
God, nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark, ,i>.// o \f)//f7ru(; ' h.nn'i'r/g," (Sec Cyril cont. Julian,
lib. X. Opp. VI. b. p. 32S b, ed. Aubert.) In two other instances, Cyril quotes the passage m the
same way: Opp. v. pars ii. b. pp. iiS a, 148 e; though he usually follows the order of the
present Greek text.
*In fifteen out of the eighteen instances in the N. T., besides the present, in which "Am/^v
at the end of a sentence is probably genuine, it follows a doxology ; namely, Rom. i. 25, xi. 36, xvi
27; Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; i Tim. i. 17, vi. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 21, i Pel.
iv. II, V, II (2 Pet. iii. iS); Jude 25; Rev. i. 6, vii. 12. Contra^ Rom. xv. 33; Gal, vi. 18
(Rev. i. 7).
t The MSS. K , D, F, G, cannot be counted on one side or the other; respecting K, we have
no information. For a fuller statement of the facts in the case, see Note A at the end of this essay.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 347
case, John i. i, we find language which excludes all doubt. And in this
ca'ie the words og tariv^ as in i. 25, would have given equal certainty. . . .
Moreover, here Paul has in hand an altogether diffjrent subject, the
present position of the Jews. And it seems to me much more likely
that he would deviate from his comnon mode of expression, and write
once " God be blessed " instead of " to God be glory," than that, in a
passage which does not specially refer to the nature of Christ, he would
assert, what he nowhere else explicitly asserts, that Christ is God, and
assert it in language which may either mean this or something quite
different
Many writers, like Dr. Gifford, speak of that construction
which refers f>^, etc., to Christ as "the natural and simple"
one, "which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesi-
tation, if no doctrine were involved.*' It might be said in
reply, that the natural and simple construction of words
considered apart from the doctrine it involves, and with
reference to merely lexical and grammatical considerations,
is by no means always the true one. For example, accord-
ing to the natural construction of the words vuEiq u tov Trarpdc
Tov Aia36?jov iffri (John viii. 44), their meaning is, "you are from
the father of the devil " ; and probably no Greek scholar
would think of putting any other meaning on them, if no
question of doctrine were involved. Again, in Luke ii. 38,
"she gave thanks unto God, and spake of him to all them
that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.** How
unnatural, it may be said, to refer the "him ** to any subject
but "God,*' there being no other possible antecedent men-
tioned in this or in the three preceding verses. But I do
not make or need to mike this reply. We have already
considered the grammatical side of the question, and have
seen, I trust, that the construction which mikes ow*-. etc.,
the subject of a new sentence is perfectly simple and easy.
I only add here that the meaning of words often depends
on the way they are read, — on the pauses, and tones of
voice. (If we could only have heard Paul dictate this pas-
sage to Tertius !) And it is a matter of course that, when
a person has long been accustomed, from whatever cause,
to read and understand a passage in a particular way, any
other mode of reading it will seem to him unnatural. But
343 CRITICAL ESSAYS
this impression will often be delusive. And it does not
follow that a mode of understanding the passage which was
easy and natural in the third and fourth centuries, or even
earlier, when it had becom: common to apply the name ^<>f
to Christ, would have seemed the most easy and natural to
the first readers of the Epistle. I waive here all considera-
tions of doctrine, and call attention only to the use of lan-
guage. When we observe that everywhere else in this
Epistle the Apostle has used the word ^ '>:• of the Father
in distinction from Christ, so that it is virtually a proper
name,* that this is also true of the Epistles previously
written — those to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians,
how can we reasonably doubt that, if the verbal ambiguity
here occasioned a momentary hesitation as to the meaning,
a primitive reader of thj Epistle would naturally suppose
that th'j word '^fi; designated the being everywhere else de-
noted by this name in the Apostle's writings, and would
give the passige the construction thus suggested.^ But this
is a point which will be considered more fully in another
place.
The objection that, if we mike the last clause a doxology
to Gj I, "tho [)articiple '■>• is superfluous and awkward," will
be noticed below under Xo. 6.
5. It is further uri;ed that r'> Knr:i anoKn requires an antith-
esis, which is suj)posed to be supplied by what follows.
Some even say that ^'/-< c',.n., must mean *' according to
his human nature," and therefore requires as an antithesis
the mention of the divine nature of Christ. But the proper
antithesis to ^"'/ r/i/rvt is K.irii rrvn-iid, not K('''<i "//»' fhorz/ra, which
there is nothin<j^ in the phrase itself to suggest: \ara r7(z,>/vY/. as
will at once appear on examining the cases of its use in the
New Testament, does not refer to a distinction of natures^
but often denotes a physical relation, such, for example, as
depends on birth or other outward circumstances, in contrast
with a spiritual relation. We need only refer to the third
verse of this very chapter, which certainly does not imply
• It is so used in the tir-; tajn chaiuers about eighty-seven times, and so in the verse which
immediately follows the one under discussion.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. $ 349
that Paul or his "kinsmen Kara adpKa** had a divine nature
also. The phrase Kara adpKa undoubtedly implies an antithe-
sis: "as to the flesh," by his natural birth and in his merely
outward relations, the Messiah, the Son of David, was from
the Jews, and in this they might glory ; but as Son of God,
and in his higher, spiritual relations, he belonged to all
mankind. It was not to the Apostle's purpose to describe
what he was K-x-i Tri'^r-aa, as he is speaking of the /^^/^//^r dis-
tinctions of the Jews. Indeed, the antithesis to Kara aapKa is
very often not expressed (see, for example, Rom. iv. i,
ix. 3; I Cor. i. 26, X. i8; 2 Cor. v. i6; Eph. vi. 5 ; Col. iii.
22), so that Alford judiciously says : " I do not reckon
among the objections the want of any antithesis to Kara
oipm, because that might have well been left to the readers
to supply." We have an example strikingly parallel to the
present in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corin-
thians (c. 32), first adduced, so far as I know, by Dr.
Whitby, in his Lasl Thoughts, which at least demonstrates
that, in a case like this, the expression of an antithesis is
not required. Speaking of the high distinctions of the
patriarch Jacob, Clemant says : ** For from him were all the
priests and Levites that ministered to the altar of God ;
from him was the Lord Jesus as to the flesh (to Kara adpKa) ;
from him were kings and rulers and leaders in the line of
Judah." See also Iren. Hacr, iv. 4. § i : i^avruv ydp rb Kara
adpKa 6 xp^^^ eKap'xo<f>op//f^r), Kai oi d7r6aTo?/K (mistranslated in the
Ante-Nicene Christian Library) ; and Frag. xvii. ed. Stieren,
p. 836 I iic Ai TOO Xevl Kai Tov*lov6a to Kara adpKa, <!>f liaatX^vq Kai iepev^f
iytwffBfi [6 Xpiardo].
The eminent Dutch commentator, Van Hengel, maintains
in an elaborate note on this passage, citing many examples,
that the form of the restrictive phrase here used, rb ^-ard (ydpKa,
with the neuter article prefixed, absolutely requires a pause
after adpKo, and does not admit, according to Greek usage, of
the expression of an antithesis after it, so that the following
part of the verse must be referred to God. (Comp. Rom. i.
15; xii. 18.) He represents his view as supported by the
authority of the very distinguished Professor C. G. Cobet
350 CRITICAL ESSAYS
of Leyden, who as a master of the Greek language has per-
haps no superior among European scholars.*
It may be true that Greek usage in respect to such re-
strictive expressions, when t6 or rd is prefixed, accords with
the statement of Van Hengel, indorsed by Cobet. In my
limited research I have found no exception. The two pas-
sages cited by Meyer in opposition (Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 11 ; Plat.
Mill, 320 C.) seem to me wholly irrelevant : the former,
because we have /^^»' with the to f-' fao/, which of course re-
quires an antithetic clause with ^t\ the latter, because the
essential element in the case, the r6 or ^a, does not stand
before Kara -rii aoTv. But I must agree with Dr. Dwight (/. c,
p. 28) that Van Hengel's argument is not conclusive. On
the supposition that « <*>»', etc., refers to Christ, we have not
a formal antithesis, such as would be excluded by Van
Hengel's rule, but simply an appositional, descriptive clause,
setting forth the exalted dignity of him who as to the flesh
sprang from the Jews. I cannot believe that there is any
law of the Greek language which forbids this.
We may say, however, and it is a remark of some impor-
tance, that the r6 before ^ara adftna^ laying stress on the restric-
tion, and suggesting an antithesis which therefore did not
need to be expressed, indicates that the writer has done with
that point, and makes a pause natural. It makes it easv to
take the o uv as introducing an independent sentence, though
it does not, as I believe, make it necessary to take it so.
I admit, further, that, if we assume that the conception of
Christ as God was familiar to the readers of the Epistle,
and especially, if we suppose that they had often heard him
called so by the early preachers of Christianity, the applica-
tion of the '> <•", etc., to Christ here would be natural, and
also very suitable to the object of the Apostle in this pas-
sage. I am obliged to say, however, that this is assuming
what is not favored by Paul's use of language or by the
record of the apostolic preaching in the Book of Acts.
•See Van Henj^el, Interp. E/>. Pauli ad Rom., torn. ii. (185-)), pp. 34S-353, and pp. 804-813.
Speaking of his citations, lie says (p. 3 ;o), " Allatorum unum a.terumque mecuni communicavit
ConRr US noster, se raulio plura, quibub interpreiano mea confirmaretur, suppeditare posse
dicen>." [See p. 432 sq ]
ON THE CONSTRUCriON OF ROMANS IX. 5 ^i
On the Other hand, there was no need of such an append-
age to o xt>^^k' We have only to consider the glory and
dignity with which the name of the Messiah was invested
in the mind of a Je\y, and the still higher glory and dignity
associated with <J xp^f^*'^ in the mind of a Christian, and espe-
cially in the mind of Paul.
6. It is further objected that, in sentences which begin
with a doxology or an ascription of blessing, d/j^yrrk (or
n'7j}}^fifvoi:) always precedes the subject; and that " the laws "
or "rules of grammar" (Stuart, Alford) require that it
should do so here to justify the construction proposed. So,
in the N. T., €iAo-}7rr6g stands first in the doxologies Luke i.
68, 2 Cor. i. 3, Eph. i. 3, i Pet. i. 3 ; and so ei^'/.o-^-rrrdg and
ri'/.oj7/wwf precede the subject in a multitude of places in the
Septuagint. (See Trommius's Concordance and Wahl's C/n-
vis librorum Vet, Test, apocryphornvi.)
Great stress has been laid on this objection "by many ; but
I believe that a critical examination will show that it has no
real weight.
We will begin by considering a misconception of the
meaning of o wv I'kX vdxTuv Heo^ which has led to untenable ob-
jections against the doxological construction, and has pre-
vented the reason for the position of ev/MyTrog from being
clearly seen. It has been assumed by many that the phrase
is simply equivalent to " the Supreme God " (so Wahl, s, v.
iiri, omnibus superior^ omnium snmmns)* as if the Apostle
was contrasting God with Christ in respect to dignity, in-
stead of simply describing God as the being who rules over
all. This misunderstanding of the expression occasioned
the chief difficulty felt by De Wette in adopting the con-
struction which places a colon or a period after aufma. It
seemed to him like "throwing Christ right into the shade,"
without any special reason, when we should rather expect
•Wahl gives a more correct view of the use of ir:i in his Clavis Uhr. Vet. Test, a^ocr.
(>853), p. a 18, col. I, C. b., where t'ttu i':7i with the genitive is defined, pretesum alicui rei,
mi0der*r %, administro aiiquam retn. Comp. Grimm's Lexicon Gr.-Lat. in iibros N. T.^ ed.
ada, M, V. tTTi^ A. i. i. d. p. i6o, col. a ; Rost and Palm's Pa^^. w. voi. i. p. 1035, col. 1,3; and the
references given by Meyer and Van Hengel in loc. See Acts vi:i. 27, x\\. ao; Gen. xliv. i;
JadtthsT. 13, tiTzav T(^ ovrt tTTi Tzdiruv a'vrov ; « Mace. x. 69, rt-/- uiza irt Koi?t/r ilr/Wcf.
35' CRITICAL ESSAYS ^^^^^^^H
something said in antithesis to ri m™ oan™, to set forth his
dignity; though he admits that this objection is removed, if
wc accept Fritzsche's explanation of the passage." On this
false view is founded Schultz's notion (see above, p. 342) that
^i- would be needed here to indicate the antithesis. On it is
also grounded the objection of Alford, Farrar, and others,
that the •'■"' is "perfectly superfluous," as, indeed, it would
be, if that were simply the meaning intended. To express
the idea of " the God over all," " the Supreme God," in con-
trast with a being to whom the term "God " might indeed
be applied, but only in a lower sense, we should need only
1^ .Vi mi.Ttt flf -, — a phrase which is thus used numberless
times in the writings of the Christian Fathers; see, for ex-
amples, Wetstein's note on Rom. ix. 5. But, as I understand
the passage, the f'n' is by no means superfluous. It not only
gives an impressive fulness to the expression, but converts
what would otherwise be a mere epithet of God into a sti/>-
sttitftivf designation of him, equivalent to "the Ruler over
All," on which the mind rests for a moment by itself, before
it reaches the <*'■'": qualified by it ; or <*■"? may be regarded as
added by way of apposition or more precise definition. The
position of this substantive designation of ftK between the
article and its noun, gives it special prominence. Comp. i
Cor. iii. 7, 1^' ^ pvrrinjv rarl ti. ofTF 6 nntiiuv, afJ! 6 ot'fd«j>- 9r6f ; Addit.
ad Esth. viii. 1. 39, i i-u -■ivro <hninirrttMv Hf6(, cf, 11, 8, 35, TiscH. ;
d frarruv (Ifinrifui' flrde, Justin Mart, A/>o/. i. 1 5 ; A vnairiji 7..Mf rm'
xatrifetof, idi/f. i. 26. In expressions of this kind, the definite
article fulfils, I conceive, a double function : it is con-
nected with the participle or other adjunct which immedi-
ately follows it, just as it would be if the substantive at the
end were omitted ; but, at the same time, it makes that sub-
stantive definite, so that the article in effect belongs to the
substantive as well as to the participle. Thus, u wv (rt urii.Twi'
K'^r is equivalent to i "("r A Hm iVi irAvruv in everything except the
difference in />«'W('/c;/ce given to the different parts of the
phrase in the two expressions. In the latter, "ft'^ is made
prominent by its position : in the former, prominence is
given to the particular conception expressed by •'• ii" !■"' Tivrur.
'• the Ruler over All." •
Let us look now for a moment at the connection of
thought in the passage before us, and we shall see that this
distinction is important. The Apostle is speaking of the
favored nation to which it is his pride to belong. Its grand
religious history of some two thousand years passes rapidly
before his mind, as in a panorama. Their ancestors were the
patriarchs, — Abraham. Isaac, and Jacob. Theirs xvcre "the
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, ami the giv-
ing of the Law, and the temple service, and the promises."
But Gjd's choice and training of his "peculiar people," and
the privileges conferred upon them, were all a providential
preparation for the advent of the Messiah, whose birth from
among the Jews was their highest national distinction and
glory ; while his mission as the founder of a spiritual and
iiriivi-rsal religion was the crowning manifestation of God's
love and mercy to mankind. How could this survey of the
ages of promise and preparation, and the great fulfilment in
Christ, fail to bring vividly before the mind of the Apostle
the thought of God as the Bciit^ '.oho presides over all things,
who cares for all men and controls all events?! Because
ral ll
:hlhi
•So™ (p- Ml) »• expKMing aj Tie* o/ the tneaains ttpttttaa the angin*! perfectly. Nor do
piteeive Ihit Ibe Engliih idiom idmiu al i perfect mnilaliuD. II «e nader " he wba u ova
■U, God. be bteued far erer," we maX% ibe word " Cod " lUiad in limple ippmiliDn to " ha whi
u over jdl." which I danoL tuppoulAbo Lh«^frni4«4fj<:4/cotiBrnictiDD. [ I, on the other bond
n tniuUir. " be who ii Gdd over ill be blaaiwl for ever," we lose tn a greil maiure the eSec
ot tbc poiilion of Iha Zai M ituvruv beloro Mnjf.
f Cmrnui huwitU pmenlcd the tbought ol the AposLle: " Ul enim hiec Dm-iia, qiuecoin
memont dt idopiioike, g^onl, Iqamflvliei l^tlalione, cullibiu, ic promiuit, deque pauibua. e:
qdibne Cbrialiu juiu cvnenl Qrtui esi, dediret non forluiio futa, sed idmirabili Dd providaalifl
blAipHemiia ijtipeterent-^^ tfou inioe., i
CntOc aUkt, om pu
(li. ii'it,: »(-!»" I
lot (lie whole ol ihi li
criptioQ ol bleaiiiij^ to lUm \t
3S4 CRrTICAL ESSAVS
this conception is prominent in his mind, he places the A
iiri •niiTu,' first in the sentence. A recognition of this
removes all the difficulty about the position of "'^
There is no "law of grammar" bearing on the matter,
ccpt the law that the predicate, when it is more promini
in the mind of the writer, precedes the subject. In simply-
exclamatory doxologies, the 'W.njTrar or n'>^ri/"t<'"': comes first,
because the feeling that prompts its use is predominant, and
can be expressed in a single word. But here, where
thought of the overruling providence of GoJ is promineal
the uiiM(*Ti TtiiTi.ii- must stand first in the sentence, to expn
that prominence; and the position of ci'i>...)'vrav after it, is
quired by the very same law of the Greek language whu
governs all the examples that have been alleged against tl
doxological construction of the passage. This thought of
God as the Ruler over All reappears in the do.tology at the
end of the eleventh chapter (xi. 36), where the Apostle con-
cludes his grand Theodicy : " For from him and through
him and to him are all things; to him is the glory for
ever! Amen." Compare also Eph, i. 11, cited by Mr.
Beet : " foreordained according to the purpose of him who
worketh all things after the counsel of his will" ; and so
in another doxology (i Tim. i. 17) suggested by the mention
of Christ, the ascription is, r^j iiiaA-: j-ii« oiiwji',— " to the King
OF THE AGES." '
I prefer, on the whole, to take riiruu as neuter ; but much
might be said in favor of the view of Fritzsche, whose note
on this passage is especially valuable. He, with many other
scholars, regards it as masculine : " Q/ii omnibus pracest Jio-
mitiibus {i.e. qui ct Judaeis et gentilibus consulit Dcus, der
ueber alien Menschen waltende Gott) sii ce/ebratus pcrpetuo,
amen." (C. F. A. Fritzsche, Pauli ad Rom. Epist.
■TUi nmi la me ihi: icuc RodEHng iiihcr ihin " id the Ki
inplied. Comp, Re*, iv. %, Watom iiul Hon ; Sir. mr
Pa.odi*. (otlr.] ii; Cleoi. Rom. &f. ad Cirr. ix. js, ]
I.U. S./ac. c ij. So El iv, iS. k!vikut_ ,'}nai>ri'u>
Plaitl. NiH, c II, 6ii (Opp. i. ]]&, ]];. cd, Ming.). Dt Htmda,
ipiy
rst,
i
: JoKph. A
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 355
[1839] P- 272.) He refers for the rravruv to Rom. x. 12. xi.
32, iii. 29.
We may note here that, while the Apostle says «^» oi Tarfix^.
he does not say w»'. but *c wi' o X'^t(7ror. He could not forget
the thought which per\'ades the Epistle, that the Messiah
was for aU men alike. Nor does he forget that, while by
natural descent, Kara adpKa. Christ was *' from the Jews," he
was Kara -vti'ua, and in all that constituted him the Messiah,
"from God," who "anointed him with the Holy Spirit and
with power," who " made him both Lord and Christ," who
marked him out as his " Son " by raising him from the dead
(Acts xiii. 33 ; Rom. i. 4), and setting him at his right hand
in the heavenly places, and giving him to be the head over
all things to the Church (Eph. i. 20-22), — that Church in
which there is no distinction of "Greek and Jew," "but
Christ is all and in all."
That such words as ei/jtyrrrdg, tv}jnyrju{'\'Oc, uaKnpio^, and i'TiKaTOpaTor
should usually stand first in the sentence in expressions
of benediction, macarism, and malediction, is natural in
Greek for the same reason that it is natural in English to
give the first place to such words as "blessed," "happy,"
"cursed." It makes no difference, as a study of the exam-
ples will show, whether the expression be optative ^ as is usu-
ally the case with d/utyf/iuivftc, with the ellipsis of f^v or tarL*, or
declarative^ as in the case of imKf'if)inr^ and usually, I believe,
of ev7joyirr6q, tori being understood.* The ellipsis of the sub-
stantive verb gives rapidity and force to the expression, indi-
cating a certain glow of feeling. But in Greek as in Eng-
lish, if the subject is more prominent in the mind of the
writer, and is not overweighted with descriptive appendages,
•I beliere that er/.oyrfTor in doxologies is distinguished from ei/.o] ^fifvoc as iaudandHs is
from laaidmtus; and that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is therefore strictly a declarative, not an
optative one. The most literal and exact rendering into Latin would be something like this:
" lUe qui est sui>er omnia Deus laudandus (est) in aetemum ! *' Where the verb is expressed
witli evA/ryrfrdr (as very often in the formula d'/ir. f/roc rl), it is always, I believe, in the indic-
ative. Here I must express my surprise that Canon Farrar ( Tke Expoiitor^ vol. ix. p. 40a ; vol.
z. p. 258) should deny that Rom. i. 25 and 2 Cor. xi. 31 are "doxologies." What is a doxology
bat a i»oua ascription of glory or praise? If uq Inrtv ilvxiyr^rbc f'f roir aiutva^^ <iur/i\
Rom. i 35, is " not a doxology at all '* on account of the iariv, then Matt. vi. 13 (text rec.) and
I PeL !▼. II are, for the same reason, not doxologies.
356 CRITICAL ESSAYS
there is nothing to hinder a change of order, but the genius
of the language rather requires it.
The example commonly adduced of this variation in the
case of ev?Myrr6i is Ps. Ixvii. (Heb. Ixviii.) 20, KipuK odeb^elXeh
'}Tf76^,ev?joy7fT(^ Kvpio^ ^uepav Koff yfifpav, where WC find ev?u)}'7jr6c in both
positions. This peculiarity is the result of a misconstruc-
tion and perhaps also of a false reading (Meyer) of the He-
brew. The example shows that the position of ev/MyjfT6g after
the subject violates no law of the Greek language ; but, on
account of the repetition of £v/oyrr6g, I do not urge it as a
parallel to Rom. ix. 5. (See Dr. Dwight as above, p. 32 f.
and cf. Essay XVII. p. 436 below.) On the other hand, the
passage cited by Grimm (see as above, p. 34) from the Apoc-
ryphal Psalms of Solomon, viii. 41, 42, written probably about
48 B.C., seems to me quite to the purpose : —
aivETo^ Kvpioq kv roig Kfjlfiaaiv avrob kv arofiari baiuv^
KoX (TV ev^oyiffiiuoc, 'l(7pa//X vnd Kvpiov eig rbv oiwva.*
Here, in the first line, alverdc precedes, because the predi-
cate is emphatic ; but ifi the second, the subject, <Ti\ pre-
cedes, because it is meant to receive the emphasis. I per-
ceive no antithesis or studied chiasmus here. The sentence
is no more a ** double" or "compound" one than Gen. xiv.
19, 20; I Sam. XXV. 32, 33 ; Ps. Ixxi. (Ixxii.) 18, 19 ; Tob. xi.
13, 16 (Sin.) ; Judith xiii. 18; Orat. Azar. 2; and I see no
reason why the fact that the clauses are connected by ^a/'
should affect the position of n'/.o-^roc here more than in
those passages, — no reason why it should affect it at all.
Another example in which the subject precedes irrLKampdrog
and tv/o]titdr»t in an optative or possibly a predictive sen-
tence is Gen. XXvii. 29, <* nardfxjfiii^ug ae imnnrafmror^ 6 6t tv/jDyCiv at
tihr.tjutvnr. Hcrc thc Gfcek follows the order of the Hebrew,
and the reason for the unusual position in both I suppose to
be the fact that the contrast between o Karapuurvnq and o d/jyyijv
naturally brought the subjects into the foreground. It is
true that in Rom. ix. 5, as I understand the passage (though
others take a different view), there is no antithesis, as there
is here ; but the example shows that, when for any reason
•See O. F. Friizsche, Libri apoc. V. T. Gr. (I'^ji), p 579, or Hilgenfeld, Mestias Judaeo-
rum I, iS'»;), p. 14.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 357
the writer wishes to make the subject prominent, there is
no law of the Greek language which imprisons such a predi-
cate as ev^yrifuvo^ at the beginning of the sentence.
Another example, in a declarative sentence, but not the
less pertinent on that account (the verb not being ex-
pressed), is Gen. xxvi. 29, according to what I believe to be
the true reading, koX v'w ah evAo}'7frbc vTtd Kvpiov^ where the ab being
emphatic, as is shown by the corresponding order in He-
brew, stands before ebXoyjfToc. Contrast Gen. iii. 14; iv. 11;
Josh. ix. 29 (al. 23). This reading is supported by a// the
uncial MSS. that contain the passage, — namely, I. Cod. Cot-
ton, (cent, v.), III. Alex, (v.), X. Coislin. (vii.), and Bodl.
(viii. or ix.) ed. Tisch. Mo/i. Sacr. Ined., vol. ii. (1857), p. 234,
with at least twenty-five cursives, and the Aldine edition,
also by all the ancient versions except the Aethiopic, and the
Latin, which translates freelj^, against the mi v'w ei^Myrfuh'oc ah
of the Roman edition, which has very little authority here.*
Still another case where in a declarative sentence the
usual order of subject and predicate is reversed, both in the
Greek and the Hebrew, is i Kings ii. 45 (al. 46), ««< « MaaL/^ev^
la^Muijv ev/jtyrffievog, the ellipsis being probably tarat. Here I
suppose the reason for the exceptional order to be the con-
trast between Solomon and Shimei (ver. 44).
It is a curious fact that fiaKapiarSc, a word perfectly analo-
gous to tu'MyrfTd^, and which would naturally stand first in the
predicate, happens to follow the subject in the only in-
stances of its use in the Septuagint which come into com-
parison here, — namely, Pro v. xiv. 21 ; xvi. 20; xxix. 18.
The reason seems to be the same as in the case we have just
considered: there is a contrast of subjects. For the same
reason kmKardparo^ follows the subject in Wisd. xiv. 8 (comp.
ver. 7).
These examples go to confirm Winer's statement in re-
spect to contrasted subjects. And I must here remark, in
*The sUtement abore about the reading of the ancient versions in Gen. zxti. 29 lacks preci-
The vertiOQt made directly from the Hebrew, of c<mr<^e, do not come under consideration.
Of thoee made from the Septuagint, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Old SlaNnc (Cod.
Oltrog.) support av tv}.ny.\ the Aethiopic, f »•>'>; . ar-, the Old Latin has perished; and the
Coptic, as I am informed by Professor T. O. Paine, omits the last clause of the verse.
35^ CRITICAL ESSAYS
respect to certain passages which have been alleged in oppo-
sition (see Dr. Dwight as above, p. 36), that I can perceive
no contrast of subjects in Gen. xiv. ig, 20; i Sam. xxv. 32,
33 ; or in Ps. Ixxxviii. (Ixxxix.) 53, where the doxology appears
to have no relation to what precedes, but to be rather the
formal doxology, appended by the compiler, which concludes
the Third Book of the Psalms (comp. Ps. xl. (xli.) 14).
It may be said that none of the examples we have been
considering is precisely similar to Rom. ix. 5. But they all
illustrate the fact that there is nothing to hinder a Greek
writer from changing the ordinary position of tv7.n^iiT6^ and
kindred words, when from any cause the subject is naturally
more prominent in his mind. They show that the princi-
ple of the rule which governs the position may authorize
or require a deviation from the common order. I must
further agree with Meyer and Ellicott on Eph. i. 3, and
Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 5, in regarding as not altogether
irrelevant such passages as Ps. cxii. (cxiii.) 2, un to bvoua Kvpov
£i/j)-,rifnvor, whcrc, though tir/ preccdcs, as a copula it can have
no emphasis ; and the position of dOjoytifitvov is determined
by the fact that the subject rather than the predicate here
naturally presents itself first to the mind. The difference
between such a sentence and fi/nyT/uinw ru ow.ua Kvpiov is like
that in Eni^lish between " May the name of the Lord be
blessed" and "Blessed be the name of the Lord." It is
evident, I think, that in the latter sentence the predicate
is made more prominent, and in the former the subject;
but, if a person docs not feel this, it cannot be proved.
Other examples of this kind are Ruth ii. 19 ; i Kings x, 9;
2 Chron. ix. 8; Job i. 21 ; Dan. ii. 20; Lit. S. Jac. c. 19;
Lit, 5. Marci, c. 20, a. (Hammond, pp. 52, 192). In Ps.
cxii. (cxiii.) 2 and Job i. 21, the prominence given to the
subject is suggested by what precedes.
I will give one example of the fallacy of merely empirical
rules respecting the position of words. Looking at Young's
Analytical Conconlance, there are, if I have counted right,
one hundred and thirtv-eiirht instances in which, in sen-
tences like " Blessed be God," '* Blessed are the meek," the
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 359
word " blessed " precedes the subject in the common Eng-
lish Bible. There is no exception to this usage in the Old
Testament or the New. ** Here," exclaims the empiric, *' is
a law of the language. To say * God be blessed ' is not Eng-
lish." But, if we look into the Apocrypha, we find that our
translators have said it, — namely, in Tobit xi. 17; and so it
stands also in the Genevan version, though the Greek reads
fi/oj^rof o^fof. Why the translators changed the order must
be a matter of conjecture. Perhaps it was to make a con-
trast with the last clause of the sentence.
There is a homely but important maxim which has been
forgotten in many discussions of the passage before us, that
"circumstances alter cases." I have carefully examined all
the examples of doxology or benediction in the New Testa-
ment and the Septuagint, and in other ancient writings, as
the Liturgies, in which ev/M-yrrrdi- or €v?j}yr/uiv<)c precedes the sub-
ject ; and there is not one among them which, so far as I
can judge, justifies the assumption that, because erAoyr/roc pre-
cedes the subject there, it would probably have done so
here, had it been the purpose of Paul to introduce a doxol-
ogy. The cases in which a doxology begins without a previ-
ous enumeration of blessings, but in which the thought of
the blessing prompts an exclamiition of praise or thanksgiv-
ing,— " Blessed be God, who '* or " for he '* has done this
or that, — are evi.lently not parallel. All the New Testa-
ment doxologies with ev?jo}nT6c, and most of those in the Sep-
tuagint, are of this character.* In these cases, we perceive
at once that any other order would be strange. The expres-
sion of the feelings which requires but one word, naturally
precedes the mention of the ground of the feeling, which
often requires very many. But there is a difference be-
tween th7joyirr(iq and cr'Aoyrrroc rig rohg atmar. Where it WOuld bC
natural for the former to precede the subject, it might be
more natural for the latter to follow. In the example ad-
duced by Dr. Dwight in his criticism of Winer (see as above,
•See Luke i. 68; 2 Cor. i. 3 ; Eph. i. 3; i Pet. i. 3. Gen. xiv. ao, xxiv. 27; Ex. xviii. 10;
Kuth iv. 14; I Sam. xxv 32, yj; 2 Sam. xviii. 2S; i Kings i. 49, v. 7, viii. 15, 56; a Chron. ti. 12,
y'\ 4; Esra vii. 37; Ps. xxvii. (Scpr.) 6, xxx. 22, Ixv. 20, Ixxi. 18, cxxiii. 6, cxxxiv. 21, cxliu.
I . Dao. Ul a8 Theodot, 9s Sept.
360 CRITICAL ESSAYS
PP- 36, 37), it is evident that ehAoyrrrdc more naturally stands
first in the sentence ; at the end, it would be abrupt and
unrhythmical. But I cannot think that a Greek scholar
would find anything hard or unnatural in the sentence if it
read, o 6iarf]pf/aa^ Tov eavTov rdrrov iiuiavrov evTuoyriro^ tiq roix ot(^i>aCt o/^^v.
To make the argument from usage a rational one, exam-
ples sufficient in number to form the basis of an induction
should be produced in which, in passages /ike the present^
tv/.oyirrk precedes the subject. Suppose we should read here,
evAoyrfTo^ o ijv errl tzcivtuv Heug et^ toI^ a'lijvaCf WC instantly SCe that the
reference of d^ roic nio)vnc becomes, to say the least, ambigu-
ous, the " for ever *' grammatically connecting itself with
the phrase " he who is God over all " rather than with
"blessed." If, to avoid this, we read, ei/MyTfTb^ elg rovg aluvac 6 uv
km TrdvTuv 0e6r, we havc a scntcnce made unnaturally heavy and
clumsy by the interposition of nr mhr aiuvnc before the subject,
— a sentence to which I believe no parallel can be produced
in the whole range of extant doxologies. Wherever evMyir6^
precedes, the subject directly follows. These objections to
the transposition appear to me in themselves a sufficient
reason why the Apostle should have preferred the present
order. But we must also consider that any other arrange-
ment would have failed to make prominent the particular
conception of God, which the context sui;gests, as the Ruler
over All. If, then, the blessings mentioned by the Apostle
suggested to his mind the thought of God as ^i/oyiirhc ar Tu\r
diuMHic, in view of that overruling Providence which sees the
end from the beginning, which brings good out of evil and
cares for all men alike, I must agree with Winer that "the
present position of the words is not only altogether suitable,
but even necessary." {Gj-am., /te Aufl., §61. 3. e. p. 513;
p. 551 Thayer, p. 690 Moulton.) Olshausen, though he
understands the passage as relating to Christ, well says:
" Riickert's remark that (v/n)i'or, when applied to God, must,
according to the idiom of the Old and New Testament,
ahv'ays precede the noun, is of no weight. Kollner rightly
observes that the position of words is altogether [ever}^-
where] not a mechanical thing, but determined, in each par-
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 36 1
ticular conjuncture, by the connexion and. by the purpose of
the speaker." *
7. The argument founded on the notion that the Apostle
here had in mind Ps. Ixvii. (Ixviii.) 20, and was thereby led
to describe Christ as ff£<K ehloyvrhq eic rovg aicjvag^ is onc which, so
far as I know, never occurred to any commentator, ancient
or modern, before the ingenious Dr. Lange. Its weakness
has been so fully exposed by Dr. Dwight (as above, p. 33,
note) that any further notice of it is unnecessary.
8. The argument for the reference of the 6uv, etc., to
Christ, founded on supposed patristic authority, will be
considered below under IV., in connection with the history
of the interpretation of the passage.
II. I have thus endeavored to show that the construction
of the last part of the verse as a doxology suits the context,
and that the principal objections urged against it have little
or no weight.
But the construction followed in the common version is
also grammatically unobjectionable; and, if we assume that
the Apostle and those whom he addressed believed Christ
to be God, this construction likewise suits the context.
How then shall we decide the question ? If it was an
ambiguous sentence in Plato or Aristotle, our first step
would be to see what light was thrown on the probabilities
of the case by i/ie witcrs nsc of langnagc elsewhere. Look-
ing then at the question from this point of view, I find three
reasons for preferring the construction which refers the last
part of the verse to God.
I. The use of the word f»>' v-o;, ** blessed," which never
occurs in the New Testament in reference to Christ. If
we refer t\rf.nyi]rdr^ to God, our passage accords with the dox-
ologies Rom. i. 25 ; 2 Cor. i. 3 ; xi. 31 ; and Eph. i. 3. In
Rom. i. 25, we have n'/Mynrhr nc twc^ aiuva^. as here ; and 2 Cor.
xi. 31, "The God and Father (or God, the Father) of the
Lord Jesus knows — he who is blessed for ever ! — that I lie
*Obhau9en, BU>L Comm. on the .V. T',, vol. iv., p. 88, note, Kendrick'5 trans. The remark
cited from Riickert belonfir^ to the first <?dit'on of hi< CnMvn-ntA''v ( i^^u* In the second edition
(i^jq), Riickert chang-d hi« view of \\\z passage, and ndo^xed the conrtruciion which makes the
iMt pan of the vrne a doxology to (lod.
362 CRITICAL ESSAYS
not," Strongly favors the reference of the cW^j-^oc to God.*
It alone seems to me almost decisive. The word ev>u,}-f/7f»^ is
elsewhere in the New Testament used in doxologies to God
(f^uke i. 68; i Pet. i. 3); and in Mark xiv. 61, 6 ev'Myr/roc, "the
Blessed One,** is a special designation of the Supreme Being,
in accordance with the language of the later Jews, in whose
writings God is often spoken of as ** the Holy One, blessed
be He ! *'
I have already spoken (see above, p. 342) of the rarity of
doxologies to Christ in the writings of Paul, the only instance
being 2 Tim. iv. 18, though here Fritzsche {Efi. ad Rom. ii.
268) and Canon Kennedy {E/j Lectures, p. ^j) refer the
K»>f»f to God. Doxologies and thanksgivings to God are, on
the other hand, very frequent in his Epistles. Those with
ft/.o;'770f are given above ; for those with ^o^a, see Rom. xi. 36,
xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5 ; Eph. iii. 21 ; Phil. iv. 20; i Tim. i. 17
(tiuiI Ka\ 66^11) \ Tiu// K<u KpdT(>c, I Tim. vi. 16. (Comp. do^&^u^
Rom. XV. 6, 9.) Thanksgivings, with pw first, Rom. vi. 17,
vii. 25 (Lachm.. Tisch., Treg., WH.) ; 2 Cor. viii. 16, ix. 15;
TudethC) first, I Cor. xv. 57 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14; evx<^p*oT^* Rom. i. 8;
I Cor. i. 4 (14), xiv. 18; Eph. i. 16; Phil. i. 3; Col. i. 3,
12; I Thess. i. 2, ii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 3, ii. 13; Philem. 4.
Note especially the direction, ''giving thanks ahuays for all
things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even
the Father,'* Eph. v^ 20; comp. Col. iii. 17, ** do all in the
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father
through him." These facts appear to me to strengthen
the presumption founded on the usage of f.i'^o;7/r6f, that in
this passage of ambiguous construction the doxological
words should be referred to God rather than to Christ.
It may be of some interest to observe that, in the Epistle
of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, — probably the ear-
liest Christian writing that has come down to us outside of
the New Testament, — there are eight doxologies to God;
namely, cc. 32, 38, 43, 45, 58, 61, 64, 65, and none that
clearly belong to Christ. Two arc ambiguous ; namely, cc.
•For the way in which th^ Ribbinical writers are accustomed to introduce doxologif^ into
the middle of a sentence, see Schoettgcn's Horae Hebraiciie on 2 Cor. xi. 31.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 363
20, 50, like Heb. xiii. 21, i Pet. iv. 11, which a majority of
the best commentators refer to God as the leading subject;
see Dr. Dwight as above, p. 46. The clear cases of doxolo-
gies to Christ in the New Testament are Rev. i. 6, 2 Pet. iii.
18 (a book of doubtful genuineness), and Rev. v. 13, "to
Him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb " ; comp.
vii. 10. But our concern is chiefly with the usage of Paul.
The argument from the exclusive use of the word evhyyrrrd^
in reference to God has been answered by saying that ev?jnyrfT6c
is also applied to man ; and Deut. vii. 14, Ruth ii. 20, and
I Sam. XV. 13 are cited as examples of this by Dr. Gifford.
But he overlooks the fact that €v/.oyrr6r is there used in a
totally different sense ; namely, " favored *' or " blessed *'
by God. To speak of a person as "blessed" by God, or to
pray that he may be so, and to address a doxology to him,
are very different things. [See Essay XVII. p. 437.]
Note further that ev?A)yf/utv<M; 6 tf)xoueifog tf bvouan. Kvpiov, Ps. cxvii.
(cxviii.) 26, applied to Christ in Matt. xxi. 9 and the parallel
passages, is not a doxology. Comp. Mark xi. 10 ; Luke i.
28. 42.
On the distinction between evTjoyrjroQ and ehh^yrj^kvoq^ see Note
B, at the end of this article.
2. The most striking parallel to « ^v i-rr). ^zdirrDv in the writings
of Paul is in Eph. iv. 5, 6, where Christians are said to have
*'one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of
d\\,who is over all (^W-i Tay-wt), and through all, and in all."
Here it is used of the one God, expressly distinguished from
Christ.
3. The Apostle's use of the word Oeor^ ** God,*' throughout
his Epistles. This word occurs in the Pauline Epistles, not
including that to the Hebrews, more than five hundred
times ; and there is not a single clear instance in which it
is applied to Christ. Alford, and many other Trinitarian
commentators of the highest character, find no instance
except the present. Now, in a case of ambiguous construc-
tion, ought not this ipiifonn usage of the Apostle in respect
to one of the most common words to have great weight }
To me it is absolutely decisive.
364 CRITICAL ESSAVS
It may be said, however, that Paul has nowhere declared
that Christ is not God ;• and that, even if he has not hap-
pened to give him this title in any other passage, he must
have believed him to be God, and therefore might have so
designated him, if occasion required.
As to the statem::nt that Paul has nowhere expressly
affirmed that Christ was >/o/ Gnd, it does not appear that,
supposing him to have believed this, he ever had occasion
to say it. It is certainly a remarkible fact that, whatever
may have been the teaching of Paul concerning the nature
of Christ and the mode of his union with God, it appears,
so far as we can judge from his writings, to have raised no
question as to whether he was or was not God, jealous as the
Jews were of the divine unity and disposed as the Getittles
were to recognize many gods besides the Supreme.
It is important to observe, in general, that in respect to
the application to Christ of the mm: "God" there is a very
wide difference betwi;en the usage not only of Paul, but of
all the New Testament writers, and that which we find in
Christian writers of the second and later centuries. There
is no clear instance in which any New Testament writer,
speaking in his own person, has called Christ God. In John
i. 18, the te.Yt is doubtful ; and, in 1 John v. 20, the •"*'rnr more
naturally refers to the leading subject in what precedes, —
namely, Thv n/.ifUvav^ — and is so understood by the best gram-
marians, as Winer and Biittmann, and by many eminent
Trinitarian commentators. [See Essay XVIII. Note C. sub
Jill.] In John i. i, Aa is the predicate not of the historical
Christ, but of the antemundane Logos. The passages which
have been alleged from the writings of Paul will be noticed
presently.!
But it may be said that, even if there is no other passage
in which Paul has called Christ God, there are many in
which the works and the attributes of God are ascribed to
him, and in which he is recognized as the object of dlvin,e
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. $ 365
worship ; so that we ought to find no difficulty in supposing
that he is here declared to be ** God blessed for ever." It
may be said in reply, that the passages referred to do not
authorize the inference which has been drawn from them ;
and that, if they are regarded as doing so, the unity of God
would seem to be infringed. A discussion of this subject
would lead us out of the field of exegesis into the tangled
thicket of dogmatic theology : we should have to consider
the questions of consubstantiality, eternal generation, the
hypostatic union, and the kenosis. Such a discussion would
here be out of place. But it is certainly proper to look
at the passages where Paul has used the clearest and
strongest language concerning the dignity of Christ and his
relation to the Father, and ask ourselves whether they allow
us to regard it as probable that he has here spoken of him
as "God over all, blessed for ever," or even as "overall,
God blessed for ever."
In the Epistles which purport to be written by Paul there
is only one passage besides the present in which any consid-
erable number of respectable scholars now suppose that he
has actually called Christ God ; namely, Titus ii. 13. Here
the new Revised Version, in the text, makes him speak of
"our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." But the un-
certainty of this translation is indicated by the marginal
rendering, "the great God and our Saviour"; and, in an-
other paper, I have stated my reasons for believing the
latter construction the true one. [See Essay XVIII.] This
latter construction was preferred by a large majority of the
American Company of Revisers, and it has the support pi
many other eminent Trinitarian scholars. Surely, so doubt-
ful a passage cannot serve to render it probable that Christ
is called " God blessed for ever " in Rom. ix. 5.
Acts XX. 28 has also been cited, where, according to the
textus rcceptus, Paul, in his address to the Ephesian elders,
is represented as speaking of " the Church of God, which he
purchased with his own blood." This reading is adopted by
the English Revisers in their text, and also by Scrivener,
Alford, and Westcott and Hort ; but its doubtfulness is indi-
366 CRITICAL ESSAYS
cated by the marginal note against the word *• God," in
which the Revisers say, " Many ancient authorities read
the Lord" Here, again, the marginal reading is preferred
by the American Revisers, as also by Lachmann, Tregelles,
Green, Davidson, and Tischcndorf. I have given my reasons
for believing this the true reading in an article in the Biblio-
theca Sacra for April, 1876 [see Essay XV.]. And, although
Westcott and Hort adopt the reading God, Dr. Hort well
remarks that " the supposition that by the precise designa-
tion 'o'v eeov, Standing alone as it does here, with the article
and without any adjunct, St. Paul (or St. Luke) meant
Christ is unsupported by any analogies of language." Call-
ing attention to the fact that the true text has the remarka-
ble form, ^ta roi' aiftaro^ rob iSiov, hc would Understand the pas-
sage, **on the supposition that the text is incorrupt," as
speaking of the Church of God which he purchased
"'through the blood that was his own,* t>., as being his
Son's." "This conception," he remarks, "of the death of
Christ as a price paid by the Father is in strict accordance
with St. Paul's own language elsewhere (Rom. v. 8 ; viii.
32). It finds repeated expression in the Apostolic Constitu-
tions in language evidently founded on this passage (ii. 57.
13 ; 61. 4 ; vii. 26. i ; viii. [11. 2] 12. 18 ; 41. 4)." On the
suj^position that ^f^"" is the true reading, the passage has been
understood in a similar manner not merely by Socinian in-
terpreters, as Wolzogen and Enjedinus, but by Erasmus (in
his ParapJirasc), Pellican,* Limborch (though he prefers the
reading «'/ro/), Milton {Dc Doctrina Christianay Pars I. c. v.
p. ^6, or Eng. trans, p. 148 £.), Lenfant and Beausobre as an
alternative interpretation {Lc Nouveau Test., note /;/ loc),
Doederlcin {Inst. Thcol. Christ., ed. 6ta, 1797, § 105, Obs. 4,
p. 387), Van dcr Palm (note in his Dutch translation), Gran-
ville Penn {The Book of the New Covenant, London, 1836,
and Annotations, 1837, p. 315). and Mr. Darby {Trans, of the
N. T., 2c! ed. [1872 J). Dr. Hort, however, is disposed to
conjecture that nor dropped out after toyiaiot **at some
* " Erga conpregationem dci quae vobis oscitanter curanda non est, ut quam deos ade6
charam habuit, ui unigeniti sui sanguine earn paravcnt. ' Comm. in loc., Tiguri, 1537, fol.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 367
very early transcription, affecting all existing documents."
Granville Penn had before made the same suggestion. It is
obvious that no argument in support of any particular con-
struction of Rom. ix. 5 can be prudently drawn from such
a passage as this.
A few other passages, in which some scholars still suppose
that the name God is given to Christ by Paul, have been
examined in the paper on Titus ii. 13 (see Essay XVIII.
notes to pp.440, 447; also Dr. Dwight, as above, p. 44).
Let us now look at the passages in which Paul has used
the most exalted language respecting the person and dignity
of Christ, and ask ourselves how far they affc^rd a presump-
tion that he might here describe him as ** God blessed for
ever."
The passage in this Epistle most similar to the present is
ch. i. vv. 3, 4, where Christ is said to be " born of the seed
of David as to the flesh," but ** declared to be the Son of God
with power as to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection
from the dead," or, more exactly, ** by the resurrection of
the dead." Here the antithesis to Ka-ii odfma is supplied. It
is not, however, Kara ryv 6(6rf/ra^ or i^Tci Tyv 6tiav o\'ai\\ but xfiTO. TTvevua
ayiuavvtK, " as to his holy spirit," — his higher spiritual nature,
distinguished especially by the characteristic of holiness.
There are many nice and difficult questions coriuected with
this passage which need not be here discussed ; I will only
say that I see no ground for finding in it a presumption that
the Apostle would designate Christ as " God blessed for
ever." Some, however, suppose that the title ** Son of God "
is essentially equivalent to '^^«(, and that the resurrection of
Christ as an act of his own divine power is adduced here as
a proof of his deity. I do not find the first supposition sup-
ported by the use of the term in the Old Testament or in
the New (see John x. 36) ; and, as to the second, it may be
enough to say that it contradicts the uniform representation
of the Apostle Paul on the subject, who everywhere refers
his resurrection to the power of "God the Father." See
Gal. i. i; Eph. i. 19, 20; Rom. iv. 24, vi. 4, viii. 11, x. 9;
I Cor. vi. 14, XV. 15; 2 Cor. iv. 14, xiii. 4; i Thess. i. 10;
Acts xiii. 30-37. xvii. 31
368 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Another striking passage is Phil. ii. 6-1 1, where the
Apostle says that Christ, ''existing in the form of God,
counted not the being on an equality with God* a thing to
be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a ser-
vant, being made in the likeness of men." Without entering
into any detailed discussion of this passage, it may be enough
to remark that being in the form of God, as Paul uses the ex-
pression here, is a very different thing from being God ; that
the //opo'/ cannot denote the nature or essence of Christ, be-
cause it is something of which he is represented as empty-
ing or divesting himself. The same is true of the ru eivat laa
''v, "the being on an equality with God," or "like God,"
which is spoken of as something which he was not eager to
seize, according to one way of understanding dpTrayuov, or not
eager to retain, according to another interpretation.! The
Apostle goes on to say that, on account of this self-abnega-
tion and his obedience even unto death, " God highly exalted
him and gave him the name which is above every name ;
that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . . and
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.'* I cannot think that this
passage, distinguishing Christ as it does so clearly from God,
and representing his present exaltation as a reward bestowed
upon him by God, renders it at all likely that Paul would
call him "God blessed for ever."
We find a still more remarkable passage in the Epistle to
the Colossians, i. 15-20, where it is affirmed concerning the
Son that " he is the image of the invisible God, the first-
born of all creation ; for in him were all things created,
things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or powers ; all things have been created
through him and unto him; and he is before all things, and
in him all things consist \or hold together]. And he is the
*0r, as the Rev, Dr. B. H. Kennedy, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cam-
bridge, translates it, "'the beinj; like God"; compare Whitby's note on the use of \oa- See
Kennedy's Occasional Sermons preached he/ore the University of Catnbridge, London, 1877,
p. ^13, or Ely Lecturfs (18S2), p. 17 f.
t See Gnmm's Lexicon Ncvi Testamenii, ed. 2da(iS79), s. v. nopoiit for one view; foran-
( ther, Wc-iss's Biblische Theol. des X. T., § 103 c, p. 432 ff. , 3te Aufl. (1S80).
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. S 369
head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the
first-born from the dead ; that in all things he might have
the pre-eminence [more literally, '^become first'*]. For it
was the good pleasure [of the Father] that in him should all
the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things
unto himself." In this passage, and in Col. ii. 9, 10, where
the Apostle says of Christ "in him dwelleth all the fulness
of the Godhead bodily, and in him are ye made full, who is
the head of all principality and power," we find, I believe,
the strongest language which Paul has anywhere used con-
cerning Christ's position in the universe and his relation to
the Church. I waive all question of the genuineness of the
Epistle. Does, then, the language here employed render it
probable that Paul would, on occasion, designate Christ as
"over all, God blessed for ever" }
Here certainly, if anywhere, we might expect that he
would call him God ; but he has not only ijot done so, but
has carefully distinguished him from the being for whom he
seems to reserve that name. He does not call him God, but
"the image of the invisible God" (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, and i
Cor. xi. 7). His agency in the work of creation is also re-
stricted and made secondary by the use of the prepositions
iv and <5<fl, clearly indicating that the conception in the mind
of the Apostle is the same which appears in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, i. 3 ; that he is not the primary source of the
power exerted in creation, but the being " through whom
God made the worlds," '^/'^''Wto/Vcv roic a; wm^-; comp. also i
Cor. viii. 6, Eph. iii. 9 (though here rfrn'rv^rou x^waror- is not gen-
uine), and the well-known language of Philo concerning the
Logos.* Neither Paul nor any other New Testament writer
• Fhilo calls the Logos the " Son of God," "the eldest son," "the first-begotten," and his
rtprgsentaiion of his agency in creation is very similar to that which Paul here attributes to "the
Son of God*s love " (ver. 13). He describes the Logos as "the image of God, through whom
the whole world was framed," ilKliXf ffeov^ 6l o\\ k. t. /.. {Dt Monarch, ii. 5, Opp. ii. 225 ed.
Mangey); "the instrument, through which \or whom] the world was built," opyirov (h* or
K, T. /.. (^* Cktrui. c 35, Opp. i. i6a, where note Philo's distinction between rb vO or, ro l^
ni'f rd 61 oi\ and rb cV v) ; " the shadow of God, using whom as an instrument he made the
world" {,L»gg. AUeg. iii. 31, Opp. i. 106). In two or three places he exceptionally applies the
VetmQtd^ to the Logos, professedly using it in a lower sense {iv Kamxpiinn), and making a
distinction between Be(n;t without the article, " a divine being,*' and it ftfoc, "th* Divine Being."
(See De Somm. i. 38, Opp. i. 65s, and comp. Legg. AUtg. iii. 73, Opp. i. ia8, L 43.) In a frag*
370
uses the preposition it;, "by," in speiking of the agency of
the Son or Logos in creation. The designation "first-born
of all creation " seems also a very strange one to be applied
to Christ conceived of as God. Somu of the most orthodox
Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, as AthanasJus,
Gregory of Nyssa. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mop-
suestia, and Ausustine, were so perplexed by it that they
understood he Apostle to be speaking here of the new.
spiritual creation;" and the passage has been captained as
relating to this by some eminent modern interpreters, as
Grotius, Wctstein, Ernesti, Noesselt, Heinrichs, Scbleier-
macher, Bauragarten-Crusius, Norton, — though, I believe,
erroneously. But I shall rot discuss here the meaning of
ir^riro.fic x/m/f «riOf«r. I would Only Call attention to the way
in which the Apostle speaks of ihe ^i>e>d />/c-asure oi God, the
Father, as the source of Christ's fulness of gifts and powers.
"For it was thf good pleasure [of God] that in him should
all the fulness dwell " (ver. tgj.t This declaration explains
also Col. ii. g; comp. Eph. iii. 19, iv. 13, John i. 16. See
also John xiv. 10, iii. 34 (?).
It thus appe.irs, I think, first, that there is no satisfactory
evidence that Paul has elsewhere called Christ God; and,
secondly, that in the passages in which he speaks of his
dignity and power in the most exalted language he not only
seems studiously to avoid giving him this appellation, but
represents him d.^ deriving his dignity and power frj-n the
being to whom, in distinction from Christ, he everywhere
gives that name, — the "one God, the Father."
meot proeived by EuMbiui (Praif. Efanf. yii, n, nr Pktltnii Off. «. Sjj) ht nvno Iht
Logoi i, Ae'rrep'Kllr.K. "iI<e lecaiid Itr mIeriDr] God," d[<ui>Eui>bed fcam "the Mtai High
and t'slherof Ihe uni«rn," "Ihe CKKlwho i>l»lDre[i>r abovu, j/mllh, Logm." So heapplita
Ihe leno lo Mok> (torip. Ei. to. •), ind uyi IhJl il my be uied ol one who"'pto«ar« icml
(roafo^ip) lor oihira,"»Dd it "witi." C» Afi.(. A'oih. e. ij, Opp. L 5^7, J9S i tet tlta Ot
Mti. i. iS, Opp. a. IC& [miipriBled loa], where Moua ii ailed ^W tiiv I9mv( Hcb^ xn'i ,)a-
aiitif. Qittd dtl. fal. mild, c 44, Opp. i. m\ Ot Mif. Ah: c, tj, Opp. I. 419: l-trg.
AlUt-i. 1], Opi>, i. tsi; QiadtmH. frui. liBrr.t. ■), opp, ii. ^vt: Dt DtamOntt. c. ij. O^.
ii. ui. But, thougb he ipeik:s uf the Liigiii in langmie u enlled u Paul iiKi omoEniinc Iha
Son, be nvuld aemt have dtamed ol calling him !, u\% ciri Tt&VTwi Oeiic liiTtoyi/rUt r<C rtitif
*See Lighllc
Tlhed.)
I ri HfA; (or ,; irt
St. /
1 EfiitUi to ikt Cti
uia>aandtiiPkiitwnm,^.iti5.\e. 148 S.
lubjeel of tinldjiijfl'Fi' 1 comp. vet. is, Bsd
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 37 1
We have considered the strongest passages which have
been adduced to justify the supposition that Paul might
apply this title to Christ. I have already intimated that
they do not seem to me to authorize this supposition. But,
admitting for the sake of argument that wc must infer from
these and other passages that he really held the doctrine of
the consubstantiality and co-eternity of the Son with the
Father, and that on this account he would have been justi-
fied in calling him God, this does not remove the great im-
probability that he Jias so designated him, incidentally, in
Rom. ix. 5, in opposition to a usage of the term which per-
vades all his writings. The question still forces itself upon
us, What was the ground of this usage .^ Why has he else-
where avoided giving him this title .^ In answering this
question here, wishing to avoid as far as possible all dog-
matic discussion and to confine myself to exegetical consid-
erations, I shall not transgress the limits of recognized or-
thodoxy. The doctrine of the subordination of the Son to
the Father, in his divine as well as his human nature, has
been held by a very large number, and, if I mistake not, by
a majority of professed believers in the deity of Christ. The
fourth and last Division or '* Section " of Bishop Bull's
famous Defensio Fidci Nicaenae is entitled De Subordiua-
tiofte Filii ad Pat rem, ut ad sni origlnem ac principiinn. He
maintains and proves that the Fathers who lived before and
many, at least, of those who lived after the Council of Nice
unequivocally acknowledged this subordination (though the
post-Nicene writers were more guarded in their language),
and that on this account, while calling the Son w^<>J: and f^^v
wCfoi', as begotten from the substance of the Father, th^y
•were accustomed to reserve such titles 2s iikta: used abso-
lutely, f'f Wf<>f, and o i-i 'TdvTijv or i-'i ttucl fkor for the Father
alone. The Father alone was "uncaused," ** unoriginated,**
"the fountain of deity" to the Son and Spirit.* Now the
word Oedg was often used by the Fathers of the second and
•"The ancient doctors of the church," as Bishop Pearson remarks, "have not stuck to call
the Father 'the ongin, the cause, the author, the root, the fountain, and the head of the Son,' or
the whole Diirinity.*' ExpoiUum 0/ the Cr»»dy chap. i. p. 38, Nichols's ed.
372 CRITICAL ESSAYS
later centuries not as a proper, but as a common name;
angels, and even Christians, especially in their beatified
state, might be and were called Oeoi. It had also a meta-
phorical and rhetorical use, quite foreign from the style of
the New Testament.* All this made it easy and natural,
especially for the Fathers who were converts from heathen-
ism, to apply the title in a relative, not absolute, sense to
the Son, notwithstanding the pre-eminence which they as-
cribed to the Father. Wc find traces of this loose use of
the name in Philo, as I have observed (see p. 369, note).
But there is no trace of such a use in the writings of Paul.
The points, then, which I would make are these : that, even
granting that he believed in the deity of the Son as set forth
in the Nicene Creed, he yet held the doctrine of the subor-
dination of the Son so strongly in connection with it that
we cannot wonder if on this account he reserved the title ^^k
exclusively for the Father ; and that the way in which he
has expressed this subordination, and the way in which he
has used this title, render it incredible that he should in this
single instance (Rom. ix. 5) have suddenly transferred it to
Christ, with the addition of another designation, ** blessed
for ever," elsewhere used by him of the Father alone.
I do not see how any one can read the Epistles of Paul
without perceiving that, in speaking of the objects of Chris-
tian faith, he constantly uses ^^'k as a proper name, as the
designation of the Father in distinction from Christ. See,
for example, Rom. i. 1-3, **the gospel of God, which he had
before promised . . . concerning his Son *' ; ver. 7, " God our
Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ"; ver. 8, ** I thank my
God, through Jesus Christ"; ver. 9, ''God is my witness,
whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son " ; and so
all through the Epistle; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19," ** All things are of
* For proof and illustration of what has been stated, see Norton's Genuineness o/the Gos^h,
2d ed., vol. ill. Addit. Note D, "On the Use of the Words (hoc and Jeus'' ; Statement o/Rea-
sons, iixh ed., pp. 113, 114 note, 120 note, 3o<.) f. , 314, 319 I., 365 note, 468; Sandius, Interpreta-
tiones Paradoxae (1669), p. 227 ff.; Whiston's Primitive Christianity Revived, vol. iv. p. 100
ff.; LeCicrc (Clericus), Ars Critica, Pars II. Sect. I. c. III., vol. i. p. 145 if., 6th ed., 177S;
Account of t fie IVritings ixnd Opinions of Clement of Alexsmlriiiy by John [Kaye], Bp. of
Lincoln, 1835, P- 253; Brelschncider, Handbuch der Dogfnatik, 4te Aull. (1838), i. 596,
note 333.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 373
God^ who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave
unto us the ministry of reconciliation ; to wit, that God was
in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning
unto them their trespasses"; Eph. v. 20, ** giving thanks
always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
to Gody even the Father " ; though among the heathen there
are gods many and lords many (i Cor. viii. 6), "to us there
is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we
unto him ; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are
all things, and we through him " ; Eph. iv. 5, 6, There is
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of
all, who is over ally and through all, and in you all" ; i Tim.
ii. 5, "There is one God, one mediator also between God and
men, [himself] a man, Christ Jesus" ; v. 21, " I charge thee
before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels " ; Titus
iii. 4-6, '* God our Saviour" poured out upon us the Holy
Spirit ''through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Observe how
strongly the subordination of the Son is expressed in pas-
sages where his dignity and lordship are described in the
loftiest strain: Eph. i. 16-23, " — in my prayers, that the
God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give
unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge
of him ; . . . that ye may know what is the exceeding great-
ness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to that
working of the strength of his might which he wrought in
Christ when he raised him from the dead, and made him to
sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all
rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every
name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that
which is to come : and he put all things /// subjection under
his feety and gjve him to be head over all things to the
Church"; i Cor. iii. 22, 23, "all things are yours; and ye
are Christ's ; and Christ is God's " ; xi. 3, " the head of
every man is Christ ; and the head of the ^voman is the
man; and the head of Christ is God'' ; xv. 24, **Then com-
eth the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to Gody
even the Father"; vv. 27, 28, "But when he saith. All
things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is ex-
374 CRITICAL ESSAYS
cepted who did subject all things unto him. And when all
things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son
also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things
unto him, that God may be all in all."
Can we believe that he who has throughout his writings
placed Christ in such a relation of subordination to the
Father, and has habitually used the name God as the pecul-
iar designation of the Father in distinction from Christ, who
also calls the Father the one God, the only wise God (Rom.
xvi. 27), the only God (i Tim. i. 17), and the God of Christ,
has here, in opposition to the usage elsewhere uniform of
a word occurring five hundred times, suddenly designated
Christ as *' over all, God blessed for ever " } At least,
should not the great improbability of this turn the scale, in
a passage of doubtful construction }
4. There is another consideration which seems to me to
render it very improbable that Paul has here deviated from
his habitual restriction of the name God to "the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ '* If he has spoken of
Christ in this passage as "God blessed for ever," he has
done it obiter, as if those whom he addressed were familiar
with such a conception and desij^nation of him. But can
this have been the case with the Roman Church at so early
a stage in the development of Christian doctrine.^
It is the view of many Trinitarians that the doctrine that
Christ is God was not explicitly taught in the early preach-
ing of the Apostles. We find no trace of such teaching in
the discourses of Peter or of Stephen in the Book of Acts,
and none in those of the Apostle Paul (the passage Acts xx.
28 has already been examined), as we find none in the Sy-
noptic Gospels, which represent the instruction concerning
Christ given by the Apostles and their companions to their
converts.* Nor does it appear in the so-called Apostles'
•"There is nothing in St. Peter's sermon upon the day of Pentecost which would not, in
all probability, have been acknowiedjjed by every Ebionite Christian down to the lime when they
tinally disajjpear from history. Yet upon such a statement of doctrine, miserably insufficient as
all orthodox churches wou'.d now call it, three thousand Jews and proselytes were, without delay,
admitted to the .Sacrament of li.iptism. . . . Wo must c.ircfully bear in mind what was St. Peter's
flij.ct. It was to convince ihc Jjws that Je-us Christ was the great appointed Teacher whom
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 375
Creed. When we consider further the fact already men-
tioned above (see p. 364), that Christ is nowhere called God
in any unambiguous passage by any writer of the New Tes-
tament,* and that it is nowhere recorded that he ever
claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this absti-
nence from the use of the term as accidental. In reference
to the early apostolic preaching in particular, many of the
Christian Fathers, and later Trinitarian writers, have recog-
nized a prudent reserve in the communication of a doctrine
concerning Christ and the application of a title to him
which would at once have provoked vehement opposition on
the part of the unbelieving Jews, which would have been
particularly liable to be misunderstood by the Gentiles, and
must have required much careful explanation to reconcile it
with the unity of God and the humanity of Christ.f We
nowhere find either in the Acts or the Epistles any trace of
the controversy and questionings which the direct announce-
ment of such a doctrine must have excited. The one aim of
the early apostolic preaching was to convince first the Jews,
and then the Gentiles, that Jesus, whose life and teaching
were so wonderful, whom God had raised from the dead, was
the Messiah, exalted by God to be a Prince and a Saviour.
God had sent, ~- the true spiritual Prince whom they were to obey. The Apostle felt that, if they
jbcknowlec^ed these great truths, everything else would fo low in due time." T. W. Mossman,
B. A., Rector nf Torrington, A History of tkt Cithflic Church oy/esus Chrtsi, etc., London,
1873, pp. 193, 190. Gess naively asks, " Wie diirfte man von dem g^lilSischen Fischer, welcher
der Wortfiihrer der junger Gemeinde war, eine befriedigende Do^matilc erwarten?" Christi
Person und tVerk, ii. i. 13. See als-j Dr. Jijhn Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the
Messiakt Book III. Chap. V. (vol. ii. p. 151 ff , 5th ed.).
*I speak of the historical Christ, which is the subject in Rom. ix. 5. Th; unique prologue
of John's Gospel, in which the Lo^os ox Word is once called ihdr (i. i, comp. vcr. 18 in the text
of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort), cannot reasonably be regarded as parallel to the present
passage. This is candidly admitted by Schultz, who has mo5t elaborately defended the construc-
tion which refers the last part of Rom. ix. 5 to Christ. He says, " Nach unseren Prilmissen
versteh: sich von selbst, dass wir nicht etwa daraus, da.ss der /.o^ r>^ ^foc genannt wird, Beweise
dehen woUen fiir die ZuUssigkeit des Namcns {kite fiir den verklilrten Jesus." {JahrbUcher/Ur
denttche Theol., 186S, xiii. 491.) I of course do not enter here into th« difficult questions as to
what was precisely John's conception of the Logos, and in what sense he says " the Word became
flesh,** language which no one understands literally. Wc must consider aiso the late date of
the Gospel of John as compared with the Epistle to the Romans.
t For superabundant quotations from the Christian Fathers confirming the statement made
above, notwithstanding a few mistakes, see Pri<:stley*s History of Early Opinions concerning
Jesus Christ, Book III. Chap. IV.-VH. (vol. \\\. p. 8S ff . ed. of 17S6). Or see Chrysostom's
Homilies on the Acts, passim. Hoy this doctrine wjuld have struck a Jew may be seen from
Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho.
376 CRITICAL ESSAYS
To acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, or Jesus as Lord, whicll
is essentially the sime thing, was the one fundamental at*
tide of the Christian faith.* Much, indeed, was involved in
this confession ; but it is now. I suppose, fully established
and generally admitted that the Jews in the time of Christ
had no expectation that the coming Messiah would be an
incarnation of Jehovah, and no acquaintance with the mys-
tery of the Trinity.f Such being the state of the case, it
seems to me that, on the supposition that the Apostles were
fully enlightened in regard to the mystery of the Trinity
and the hypostatic union, the only tenable ground to be
taken is that they wisely left these doctrines to develop
themselves gradually in "the Christian consciousness." As
Dr. Pye Smith remarks, " The whole revelation of the Chris-
tian system was given by an advancing process. It cannot,
therefore, be a matter of surprise that the doctrine concern-
ing the person of the Messiah was developed gradually, and
that its clearest manifestation is to be found in the latest
written books of the New Testament." {Ut supra, p. 155,)
Canon Westcott observes, "The study of the Synoptists.
of the Apocalypse, and of the Gospel of St. John in succes-
sion enables us to see under what human conditions the
Afo,tL
Eloak I. Chip. I
It PhmtiHt anil Trtutiwe t/lit C
f S« lbs in. /ftiiHi. by Oeblcr, in Hmos'i
ftt''tnpalltMn. r«/c/.(i88<.).p,i46ff., jjqtf. Put
COflucH. Lt Bid 10 b« given \a [be Me»iab. Bui i
Rpultdir eipoBedi kc FhitKhe, £/, md Rum. \i. i
HyK. " Utid wenn Bida 6alkra 75^ Vl*^& wird, der
ISplI h'T" K'nunnl, lo (Uhen in diewr Swlls in t
•»l*m." Comp. Jm, ««1u. G wiih miiii. 16. ind on ll
I6ji Ruhoi, JAhuju: Pmfltny- v.tta, sntc jb; Schnli
. Onlu.
4 Schtilo, p.
'71 Hli
I Rom. 1. ■). HtU itm .- ■ Cot. i
f Rabbinical WTiEingaut some.
» of lb«ac ciuiiona hu been
cbf.Mtimfra.p.ni. WcbcT
de nach dcm Nuncn Jcbon'i
thsng die OencfatBD ohI Jns-
« 0<Uler. TAni. dii ^. T. a.
a. (.S;!).p.
Tinl, 1
Kr)w gr " Woid pf JehoMli" i> ■
Sniih-t Dill, ^tlu BibU, m. " '
ti u limv ibiL the book Zuhu, nvl
wrileti. bu[ 11 now pri>v«d to bt
, Farttningn H&W Ati
Knobel. Eoald, Cheyae. Thi
n ihs IVntumt aiih ibr Mmii
(■Us),
ic Mrmrmia
4upiaiDut]y in SdiHI
I. Miy.andjulr, Alb.
n. Seriholdl. iml olher
linibuii, TktKaNxOm
IciiEiirnbcfu'i! Ck'ia-
4DyE[ in ihr Ciriil-aJi
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 377
full majesty of Christ was perceived and declared, not all at
once, but step by step, and by the help of the old prophetic
teaching." (Jntrod, to the Gospel of St, John in the so-
called "Speaker's Commentary,** p. Ixxxvii.) Canon Ken-
nedy even says : ** I do not think that any apostle, John or
Peter or Paul, was so taught the full fivarr/ptov (kd-nrrog as that
they were prepared to formulate the decrees of Nicaea and
Constantinople, which appeared after three hundred years
and 'more, or the Trinitarian exegesis, which was completed
after six hundred years and more. But they, with the other
evangelists, guided by the Holy Spirit, furnished the mate-
rials from which those doctrines were developed.*' {E/y
Lectures, p. xix.)
Taking all these facts into consideration, is it probable
that at this early day the Jewish Christians and Gentile be-
lievers at Rome, who needed so much instruction in the very
elements of Christianity, were already so fully initiated into
the mysterious doctrine of the deity of Christ that the appli-
cation of the term God to him, found in no Christian writ-
ing that we know of till long after the date of this Epistle,
could have been familiar to them } Accustomed to the rep-
resentation of him as a being distinct from God, would they
not have been startled and amazed beyond measure by find-
ing him described as **over all, God blessed for ever".^
But if so, if this was a doctrine and a use of language with
which they were not familiar, it is to me wholly incredible
that the Apostle should have introduced it abruptly in this
incidental manner, and have left it without remark or expla-
nation.
Dr. Hermann Schultz, whose elaborate dissertation on
Rom. ix. 5 has been already referred to, admits that if /-<
vavTuv^tog was used here to designate the /w>of, the eternal Son
of God, — in other words, if ^^^"t was used here in reference
to the nature of Christ, — "the strict monotheism of Paul
would certainly require an intimation that the honor due to
God alone was not here trenched upon " {bccintnicJitigt)*
The expression, he maintains, describes **the dignity con-
•SchuIu,y<iAr^//c7/«'ry! deutsihe ThfOi'., im.«'^, x:u 4'»4.
37^ CRITICAL ESSAYS
ferred upon him by God " : the ^fof here is essentially equiv-
alent to Kvptoc, *' The predicate f^cog must be perfectly cov-
ered by the subject Xpinro^, i.e. the Messianic human King
of Israel." *
But these concessions of Schultz seem to me fatal to his
construction of the passage. If ^^^(Jr, used in the metaphysi-
cal sense, describing the uature of Christ, would confessedly
need explanation, to guard against an apparent infringement
of the divine unity, would not Paul's readers need to be
cautioned against taking it in this sense, — the sense which
it has everywhere else in his writings ? Again, if Paul by
^foc here only meant Kipmq, why did he not say fipwc this being
his constant designation of the glorified Christ (comp. Phil,
ii. 9-1 1) ?
This leads me to notice further the important passage, i
Cor. viii. 6, already quoted (see above, p. 373). It has often
been said f that the mention here of the Father as the " one
God " of Christians no more excludes Christ from being
God and from receiving this name than the designation of
Christ as the " one Lord ** excludes the Father from being
Lord and receiving this name. But, in making this state-
ment, some important considerations are overlooked. In
the first place, the title '* god " is unquestionably of far
hii^her dignity than the title *Mord " ; and because godship
inclnd.'s lordship, with all the titles that belong to it, it by
-This view of Schuliz appears to be that of Hofmann {Der Schri/tbrtueis, 2te Aufl , 1857,
i 14?) '^'ifl Weiss {Bibl. Thfol. d. A^ 7"., 3(6 Aufl., iSSo, p. 283, note 5), as it was formerly of
R.i'i.hi <D:e Enlsttrhunn::^ der Altkxth. Kirchfy ate Aufl., 1S57, p. 79 f.). This is the way, also,
ill which the «>ld Socinian commentators understood the passage, as Socinus, Crell, Sch ichting,
Wi 7.^'^c:x\. Tliey did not hesitate to give the name " God " to Christ any more than the ancient
Ariai.s did, uiulerstnnding it in a lower sense, and referring especially in justification of this to
John X. 34-36, and various passages of the Old Testament. So it appears to have been taken by
some of the Ante-Nxcne Fathers, who referred the last clause of the verse to Christ, as probably
by Novatian, who quotes the passas;e twice as proof that Christ is Dfiis {Df Rf^la Fidfi c\x D*
Trin. cc. 13, 30), but who says," Dorninus et Deus constituiiu esse reperitur " (c. 20); "hoc
'\\^'^\\x\\ a Patre propria consecuttis^ \\\ o\\\\\\wvn <i\ Deus esset ct Dorninus esset" (c. 22); "om-
nium Deus, quoniam omnibus ilium Deus Pater praepoiuit quern genuit" (c. 31). So Hippo-
lyius yCont. Noct. c. 6) applies the verse to Christ, and justifies the langua,5e bv quoting Christ's
declaration, "All tliinjis have been delivered to me by i^^e Father." He cites other passages
in the same c m '^r (,n. and says, " If then all ihin;.;3 have been subjected unto him with the
exception of li.n • >ii'^jected them, he rules over a!i, but the pAiher rules over him "
t See, e.^ , Lhi\s. /)jr incomprehens. Drinnt. H^m. v. c. i, <-VP- '• 4^' f- (S^)» 'd- Montf. :
Ei yiii) Tu hri '/t^^tn\hii ^hnv rln' Tdn-jxi Ik yu'/'/n ror vtuv ri/r {^F^orr/rog, Knl rb kva
/.eytadai Kifjcjv tuv viuu tKiu/./.ti rov ^artfjn 7//«; M'/jiorz/rog.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 379
no means follows that lordship includes godship, and has
a right to its titles ; in other words, that one who is properly
called a lord (x'Vor), as having servants or subjects or pos-
sessions, may therefore be properly called a god (^fof). In
the second place, the lordship of Christ is everywhere rep-
resented not as belonging to him by nature, but as conferred
upon him by the one God and Father of all. This lordship
is frequently denoted by the figurative expression, " sitting
on the right hand of God." * The expression is borrowed
from Ps. ex., so often cited in the New Testament as appli-
cable to Christ, and particularly by Peter in his discourse on
the day of Pentecost, who, after quoting the words, ** The
Lord ^JehovaJi] said unto my Lord \Adoni\y * Sit thou on
my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool,' " goes
on to say, " Let all the house of Israel therefore know as-
suredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this
Jesus whom ye crucified " (Acts ii. 35, 36). It is he to
whom **all authority was given in heaven and on earth,"
whom " God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and
a Saviour" ; "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ . . .//// all
things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head
over all things to the Church " ; ''gave unto him the name
which is above every name, . . . that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the
Father." Such being Paul's conception of the relation of
Christ to God, is it not the plain meaning of the passage
that, while the heathen worship and serve many beings
whom they call "gods" and ** lords," to Christians there is
but one God, the Father, — one being to whom they give
that name, ** from whom are all things *' and who is the
object of supreme worship ; and one being "through whom
are all things," through whom especially flow our spiritual
blessings, whom " God hath made both Lord and Christ,"
and whom Christians therefore habitually call " the Lord " ?
The fact that this appellation of Christ, under such circum-
stances, does not debar the Supreme Being from receiving
• See Knapp, De J«tu Christo ad tUxtram Dti utUnte, in his Scripta varii A rgumenti^
cd. ada (i833)» i. 39~76-
jSo caiTrCAL essavs
the name " Lord " obviously aFfords no countenance to the
notion that Paul would not hesitate to give to Christ the
nami; " God." As a matter of fact, " the Lord " is the com-
mon designation of Christ in the writings of Paul, and is
seldom usL-d of God, except in quotations from or references
to the language of the Old Testament.* There, in the Sep-
tuagint, Ki(.»^ is used of God sometimes as a proper name,
taking the place of Jehovah (Yahweh) on account of a Jew-
ish superstition, and sometimes as an apnellative.
Glancing back now for a moment over the field we have
traversed, we may reasonably say. it seems to me, first, that
ihe use of '>'■'"; ',rftf, elsewhere in the New Testament re-
stricted to God, the Father, — in connection with the exceed-
ing rarity, if not absence, of ascriptions of praise and thanks-
giving to Christ in the writings of Paul and their frequency
in reference to God, — affords a pretty strong presumption in
favor of that construction of this ambiguous passage which
nialces the last clause a doxology to the Father; Sfcimdly,
that some additional confirmation is given to this reference
by the !■•: "f^k «" -ott;,. ■rdtrui', i ;;:! JTuiTui-, in Eph. iv. 6 ; and,
thirdly, that the at first view overwhelming presumption in
favor of this construction, founded on the uniform restric-
tion of the designation "'fi-;, occurring more than 6ve hun-
dred times, to God, the Father, in the writings of Paul, is
not weakened, but rather strengthened, by our examination
of the language which he elsewhere uses respecting the dig-
nity of Christ and his relation to God. And, though our
sources of information are imperfect, we have seen that
there are very grave reasons for doubting whether the use
of "r'-r as a designation of Christ belonged to the language of
Christians anywhere at so early a period as the date of this
Epistle {cir. a.d. 58).
Beyond a doubt, all the writers of the New Testament
and the early preachers of Christianity believed that God
was united with the man Jesus Christ in a way unique and
I
I
Ihi>
« Bibhcal Xtfoiilfji (.
■fKTI'IOSit>ih<N<!"Te.i
y fiul Id hi< EiHilo," He
\.K„i-vt,) fo, Ooobt., .«,.
nibrly on 1
! of Protn
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 38 1
peculiar, distinguishing him from all other beings ; that his
teaching and works and character were divine ; that God
had raised him from the dead, and exalted him to be a
Prince and a Saviour; that he came, as the messenger of
God's love and mercy, to redeem men from sin, and make
them truly sons of God ; that " God was in Christ reconcil-
ing the world unto himself.** But no New Testament writer
has defined the mode of this union with God. How much
real light has been thrown upon the subject by the councils
of Nicaea and Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, and
the so-called Athanasian Creed, is a question on which there
may be differences of opinion. The authority of councils
is another question. But it has been no part of my object,
in discussing the construction of the passage before us, to
argue against the doctrine of the Nicene Creed. My point
is simply the use of language at the time when this Epistle
was written. The questions of doctrine and language are,
of course, closely connected, but are not identical. It seems
to me that a believer in the deity of Christ, admitting the
fact that we have no clear evidence that the ** mediator be-
tween God and men '* was ever called " God ** by any New
Testament writer, or any very early preacher of Christianity,
may recognize therein a wise Providence which saved the
nascent Church from controversies and discussions for which
it was not then prepared.
III. We will now consider some other constructions of
the passage before us. (See above, p. 335.)
I. I refrain from discussing in detail the comparative
merits of Nos. i and 2. The advocates of No. i observe
correctly that it describes Christ as only f-i -^avrDv tkdc, not
6 M TdvTutv esdq, which they say would identify him with the
Father. But if the Father is "God over all,*' and Christ
is also "God over all,** the question naturally arises how
the Father can be ''the God over all,'* unless the term
"God** as applied to Christ is used in a lower sense. The
answers to this question would lead us beyond the sphere
of exegesis, and I pass it by. Meyer thinks that, if we
382 CRITICAL ESSAYS
refer the o uu to Christ, this is the most natural construction
of the words ; and it seems to have been adopted by most
of the ancient Fathers who have cited the passage, at least
after the Council of Nicaea, and in nearly all the generally
received modern translations, from Luther and Tyndale
downwards.
2. Construction No. 2 aims to escape the difficulty pre-
sented by No. I, but involves some ambiguities. Does the
sentence mean, **who is over all (Jews as well as Gentiles),
and who is also God blessed for ever " (so Hofmann. Kahnis,
Die luth. Dogm. i. 453 f.) } or does it mean, **celui qui est
(ileve sur toutes choses, comme Dieu beni ^ternelleraent " }
as Godet translates it {Coinm. ii. 256), contending that i^i
TTiivTuv is not to be connected with Om^^ but with wv, though he
had before translated, inconsistently it would seem, **lui qui
est Dieu au-dessus de toutes choses b6ni ^terncllement "
(pp. 248, 254). Lange finds in the last clause "a quotation
from the synagogical liturgy," together with " a strong Pau-
line breviloquence," the ellipsis in which he supplies in a
manner that must always hold a high place among the curi-
osities of exegesis. He says, however, that '* every exposi-
tion is attended with great difficulties." I cannot discover
that " God blessed for ever," as a kind of compound name
of the Supreme Being, occurs in Jewish liturgies or any-
where else.
3. Construction No. 3 is defended particularly by Gess,
who maintains, in opposition to Schultz and others, that ^^A*
here *' nicht Christi Machtstellung sondern seine VVesenheit
bezjichnet." {Christi Person nnd Werk, li. i. 207.) But
on this supposition he admits that the connecting of ^^oi
with o i^v r-i -(h'-ur would prcscut a serious difficulty. *' The
care with which Paul elsewhere chooses his expressions in
such a way that' the supreme majesty of the Father shines
forth would be given up." Meyer thinks that the punctua-
tion adopted by Morus and Gess makes "die Rede" ** noch
zcrstlickter, ja kurzathmiger," than construction No. 5. But
this is rather a matter of taste and feeling. The objections
which seem to me fatal to all the corkstructions which refer
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 383
the name Oedc here to Christ have been set forth above, and
need not be repeated.
If the view of Westcott and Hort is correct, the construc-
tion of this passage adopted by Hippolytus {Conf. Noc:, c. 6)
agrees with that of Gess in finding three distinct affirma-
tions in the clause beginning with odv^ in opposition to those
who would read it fiovnKuADq. But the passage in Hippolytus
is obscure. See below under IV.
4. Under No. 4 I have noticed a possible construction,
for which, as regards the essential point, I have referred to
Wordsworth's note in his N. T. in Greeks new ed., vol. ii.
(1864). He translates in his note on ver. 5: *' He that is
existing above all, God Blessed for ever," and remarks :
" There is a special emphasis on « <jj'. He that is ; He Who
is the being One ; Jehovah. See John i. 18; Rev. i. 4, 8 ;
iv. 8 ; xi. 17; xvi. 5, compared with Exod. iii. 14, tyCt uui, 6 uv.
And compare on Gal. iii. 20." ** He Who came of the Jews,
according to the flesh, is no other than 0 wr, the Being One,
Jehovah." We have an assertion of '* His Existence from
Everlasting in ow^." He mistranslates the last part of
Athanasius, Orat, cont, Arian. i. § 24, p. 338, thus : " Paul
asserts that He is the splendour of His Father's Glory,
and is the Being One, over all, God Blessed for ever." In
his note on vv. 4, 5, on the other hand, he translates the
present passage: "Christ came. Who is over all, God
Blessed for ever.'*
There is some confusion here. The verb eiui may denote
simple existence ; it may (in contrasts) denote real in dis-
tinction from seeming existence ; it may be, and commonly
is, used as a mere copula, connecting the subject with the
predicate. As applied to the Supreme Being in Exod. iii.
14 (Sept.), Wisd. Sol. xiii. i, etc., o uv^ '* He who Is," de-
scribes him as possessing not only real, but independent and
hence eternal existence. This latter use is altogether pecul-
iar. To find it where ^v is used as a copula, or to suppose
that the two uses can be combined, is purely fanciful and
arbitrary. It was not too fanciful and arbitrary, however,
for some of the Christian Fathers, who argue Christ's eter-
384 CRITICAL ESSAYS
nal existence from the use of wv or 6 uv (or ^ui est) in such
passages as John i. 18; iii. 13 (T. R.) ; vi. 46; Rom. ix. 5;
Heb. i. 3. So Athanasius, as above ; Epiphanius, Ancorat,
c. 5 ; Gregory of Nyssa, Adv, Eu?iom, lib. x., Opp. (1638) ii.
680-682 ; Pseudo-Basil, Adv. Eunom, iv. 2, Opp. i. 282 (399) ;
Chrysostom, Opp, i. 476 f., viii. Sy, ed. Montf. ; Hilary, De
Trin. xii. 24 ; cf. Cyril. Alex. Thes, i. 4. So Proclus of
Constantinople, Ep. ad Armen. de Fide, c. 14, quoting Rom.
ix. 5> says : firrfv avrhv ovra, Iva &vapxov Ppovrijay, ** hc Spokc of
him as 6ein^, that he might declare in thunder his existence
without beginning." (Migne, Patrol. Gr. Ixv. 872^)
5. The construction, "from whom is the Messiah as to
the flesh, he who is over all : God be blessed for ever ! " has
found favor with some eminent scholars (see below under
IV.), and deserves consideration. If adopted, I think we
should understand 0 wy fTi Trdi/rwf not as meaning " he who is
superior to all the patriarchs" (Justi and others), which is
tame, and would hardly be expressed in this way ; nor " he
who is over all things," which, without qualification, seems
too absolute for Paul ; but rather, ** who is Lord of aW
(Jews and Gentiles alike), comp. Acts x. 36; Rom. x. 12,
xi. 32 ; who, though he sprang from the Jews, is yet, as the
Messiah, the ruler of a kingdom which embraces all men.
(See Wetstein's note, near the end.) The natural contrast
suggested by the mention of Christ's relation to the Jews
KaThaai)K'i, may justify us in assuming this reference of T.irrur,
which also accords with the central thought of the Epistle.
The doxology, however, seems exceedingly abrupt and curt ;
and we should expect o tku^ instead of Oe6c as the subject of
the sentence, though in a few cases the word stands in the
nominative without the article. Grimm compares ''^Vw^-'*;,
I Thess. ii. 5, with u>'i()tv(: dthoc, Rom. i. 9; also 2 Cor. v. ig;
Gal. ii. 6, vi. 7 ; Luke xx. 38 (}). We should also rather
expect (ihrfrnr to Stand first in the doxology ; but the posi-
tion of words in Greek is so largely subjectiv^e, depending
on the feeling of the writer, that we cannot urge this objec-
tion very strongly. The thought, so frequent in Paul, of
God as the source, in contrast with, or rather in distinction
OH THB CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5
from, Christ as the medium of the Messianic blessings, may
have given the word Oik prominence, (See above, p. 356 f.,
in regard to the position of the subject in contrasts.) Gess
accordingly dismisses the objection founded on the position
of (i'AiJj'/riit, remarking, "die Viiranstellung von "'■■! hatte
durch den Gegensatz gegen Christum ein zureichendes
Motiv" (iibi supra, p. 306). Still, on the whole, construc-
tion No, 7 seems to me much easier and more natural,
6. The construction numbered 6 was, I believe, first pro-
posed by Professor Andrews Norton, in his review of Pro-
fessor Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing. This was published
in the Christian Disciple (Boston) for 1819, new series, vol,
i, p, 370 ff. ; on Rom, ix. g, see p. 418 ff. The passage is
discussed more fully in his Slatemeut of Reasuns, etc. (Cam-
bridge and Boston), 1833, p. 147 tf , ; new ed. (sler. 1856), p.
203 ff., 470 ff., in which some notes were added by the writer
of the present essay. There, after giving as the literal
rendering, " He who was over all was God, blessed for ever,"
Mr. Norton remarks: "'He who was over all," that is,
over alt which has just been mentioned by the Apostle."
"Among the privileges and distinctions of the Jews, it couKi
not be forgotten by the Apostle, that God had presided over
all their concerns in a particular manner."
There is no grammatical objection to this construction of
the passage. (See above, p. 346, ist paragr.) Mr. Norton,
in translating vv. 4 and 5, uses the/aj/ tense in supplying
the ellipsis of the substantive verb. This is done by othL-r
translators ; e.g., Conybeare and Howson. It may be ques-
tioned, however, whether this is fully justified here. Canon
Kennedy uses the present tense, but seems to take the same
general view of the bearing of the passage as Mr. Norton.
See his Occasional Sermons, pp. 64, 65, and Ely Lectures.
pp. 88, 89.
As regards this view of the passage. I will only say here
that the thought presented in Mr. Norton's translation did
not need to be expressed, as it is fully implied in the nature
of the privileges and distinctions enumerated. (See above,
p. 341.) Taking Professor Kennedy's rendering, I doubt
386 CRITICAL ESSAYS
whether the Apostle would have used this language in
respect to the relation existing between God and the Jewish
people at the time when he was writing. The Jews gloried
in God as their God in a special sense (Rom. ii. 17) ; but, in
Paul's view, it was Christians, now, who rightfully gloried in
God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. v. 11; comp.
iii. 29).
7. I add a single remark, which might more properly
have been made before. I have rendered « xp'-^^t^^ here not
" Christ," as a mere proper name, but "the Messiah." Not
only the use of the article, but the context, seems to me to
require this. Westcott and Hort observe in regard to the
word xft^o'o^' "We doubt whether the appellative force, with
its various associations and implications, is ever entirely lost
in the New Testament, and are convinced that the number
of passages is small in which Messiahship, of course in the
enlarged apostolic sense, is not the principal intention of the
word." {The N, T, in Greek, vol. ii., Introd., p. 317.)
IV. We will now take notice of some points connected
with the history of the interpretation of Rom. ix. 5. The
fullest account of this is perhaps that given by Schultz in
the article already repeatedly referred to ; but he is neither
very thorough nor very accurate.
The application of the pas.sage by the Christian Fathers
will naturally come first under consideration.
The fact that the great majority of the Fathers whose
writings have come down to us understood the last part of
the verse to relate to Christ has been regarded by many as
a very weighty argument in favor of that construction. I
have had occasion to consider the value of this argument
in connection with another passage. (See Essay XVIIL,
p. 445.) The remarks there made apply equally to the
present case. The fact that the Fathers, in quoting a pas-
sage grammatically ambiguous, have given it a construction
which suited their theology, does not help us much in deter-
mining the true construction. We must remember, also,
the looser use of the term ^t^r which prevailed in the latter
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 387
part of the second century and later. (See above, p. 371 f.)
Those in the second and third centuries who held strongly
the doctrine of the inferiority of the Son, and the Arians
in the fourth, like the Socinians at a later period, did not
hesitate to apply the name " God " to Christ, and would find
little difficulty in a construction of the passage which in-
volved this. They might hesitate about the expression
" God over all " ; but, as we have seen, though natural, it
is not necessary to connect the e^n Tnivruv with f^fog.
The specimen of patristic exegesis in the construction
given to 2 Cor. iv. 4, where so many of the Fathers make
the genitive rov aiatvog depend not on o Heoc^ but rC)^' a-iarDv (see
Essay XVIII., ;/. s.), will be sufficient for most persons who
wish to form an estimate of their authority in a case like
the present. I will only ask further, taking the first exam-
ples that occur to me, how much weight is to be attributed
to the judgment of Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Isidore of Pelusium, Gennadius, Theodorus Mona-
chus, Joannes Damascenus (?), Photius, CEcumenius (or what
passes under his name), and Theophylact, when, in their zeal
for the freedom of the will, they explain -fx^tau; in Rom. viii.
28 (roig Kara ^rpofieoiv Ky^^fToig) ^ not as denoting the Divine pur-
pose, but the purpose or choice of the subjects of the call ?
(Cyril of Alexandria gives the words both meanings at the
same time.) What is the value of the opinion of Chrys-
ostom, Joannes Damascenus, CEcumenius, and Theophylact,
that <J'a 'iz/ffoi- Xpiarov in Rom. xvi. 27 is to be construed with
erjfpi^at in ver. 25 ? Shall we accept the exegesis of Chrys-
ostom and Theophylact when they tell us that in the injunc-
tion of Christ in Matt. v. 39 not to resist -9 ^ovr/pCt, t(^ rroir/fXf)
means the devil ?
Dean Burgon, in his article on " New Testament Revi-
sion" in the Quart. Rev. for Jan., 1882,* has given (p. 54 ff.)
perhaps the fullest enumeration yet presented of ancient
Christian writers who have referred the <> i-^v, k. r. >. in Rom.
ix. 5 to Christ. He counts up "55 illustrious names," forty
of Greek writers, from Irenaeus in the latter part of the
[* Reprinted in Tfu Revision Revised (London, iSSj); see p. a 13.]
CRITICAL ESSAYS
second century to John of Damascus in the eighth,
fifteen of Latin writers, from Tertullian at the beginning
of the third century to FacunJus in the sixth, "who all
see in Rom. ix. s a glorious assertion of the eternal God-
head of Christ." An examination of his list will show
that it needs some sifting. Most of the Latin writers
whom he mentions, as Augustine, knew little or nothing
of Greek, and their authority cannot be very weighty in
determining the construction of an ambiguous Greek sen-
tence. Of his illustrious names, si.x are unfortunately
unknown, being writers "of whom," as Mr. Uurgon mildly
puts it, "3 have been mistaken for Athanasius, and 3 for
Chrysostom." Another is the illustrious forger of the An-
swers to Ten Questions of Paul of Samosata, fathered
upon Dionysius of Alexandria, "certainly spurious," accord-
ing to Cardinal Newman and the best scholars generally.
and marked as pseudonymous by Mr. Burgon himself.
Methodius should also have been cited as Pseudo-Method-
ius (see p. 391 f), and Ctesarius as Pseud o-C^sari us. Among
the other illustrious names, we find "6 of the Bishops at
the Council of Antioch, a.d. 269," On looking at the
names as they appear in Routh's Rell. Sarrae. ed. alt.
(1846), iii. 2S9. I regret my inability to recall the deeds or
the occasion that made them " illustrious." unless it is the
fact that, as members of that Council, about half a century
before the Council of Nicasa, they condemned the use of the
term li^iwimoi', "consubstantial," which was established by the
latter as the test and watchword of orthodoxy.
Next to the six bishops and " ps.-Dionysius Alex." in Mr.
Burgon's list of the illustrious Fathers "who see in Rom,
ix. 5 a glorious assertion of the eternal Godhead of Christ,"
we find " Constt. App,," that is, the Apostolical Constitu-
tions, with a reference to "vi. c. 26." He does not quote
the passage. It reads as follows: "Some of the heretics
imagine the Christ [so Lagarde; or "the Lord," Cotelier
and Ueltzen] to be a mere man . . , ; but others of them
suppose that Jesus himself is the God over all, glorifying
him as his own Father, supposing him to be Son and Para-
4
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 389
clete; than which doctrines what can be more abomina-
ble?" Compare Const. Apost. iii. 17: "The Father is the
God over all, 6 km TravrLwded^; Christ is the only-begotten God,
the beloved Son, the Lord of glory." See also vi. 18.
One is surprised, after this, to find that Mr. Burgon did
not cite for the same purpose Pseudo-Ignatius ad Tars, cc.
2, 5, and ad Philip, c. 7, where it is denied emphatically that
Christ is oiv:\T:avruvQt6q-^ and also Origen, Cont, Cels, viii. 14,
who says : " Grant that there are some among the mul-
titude of believers, with their differences of opinion, who
rashly suppose that the Saviour is the Most High God over
all ; yet certainly we do not, for we believe him when he
said, The Father who sent me is greater than /." The very
strong language which Origen uses in many other places,
respecting the inferiority of the Son, renders it unlikely
that he applied the last part of this verse to Christ. See,
e.g., Cont Cels, viii. 15 ; De Princip, i. 3. § 5 ; /» loan, tom.
ii. cc. 2, 3, 6; vi. 23; xiii. 25. Rufinus's Latin version of
Origen's Commentary on Romans, which is the only author-
ity for ascribing to Origen the common interpretation of this
passage, is no authority at all. He, according to his own
account of his work, had so transformed it by omissions,
additions, and alterations, that his friends thought he ought
to claim it as his own.* It was in accordance with his pro-
fessed principles to omit or alter in the works which he
translated whatever he regarded as dangerous, particularly
whatever did not conform to his standard of orthodoxy.
His falsification of other writings of Origen is notorious.
Westcott and Hort remark that in the Rufino-Origenian
commentary on this verse " there is not a trace of Origenian
language, and this is one of the places in which Rufinus
would not fail to indulge his habit of altering an interpre-
tation which he disapproved on doctrinal grounds." They
* See hit Perarath at the end of the Epistle ; Origenis 0pp. iv. 6^ f. , ed. De U Rue. Mat-
Uuei remarks: "Rufini interpretatio, qux parum fidei habet, in epistola ad Romanos, quod
quiKbet ipse intelligit, non tain pro Origenis opere, quam pro compendio Rufini haberi detet,
quod hand dubie alia omisit, alia, sicut in ceteris libris, invito Origene admisit.'* — Pauli Epp, ad
Tkeu,, etc (Rigae, 1785), Praefatio, sig. b 2. See more fully to the same purpose Redepen-
aiai^a Or^tn^s, ii. 189 ff., who speaks of his '* Ausscheidung ganzer Siiickr/* and " Uroge-
staltoi^ des Heterodoxen in der TrinitStslehre.** See also Cave, //t'tt. Ltt., art. " Origenes."
39"
CRITICAL ESSAYS
also remark, "It is difficult to impute Origen's silence i
accident in the many places in which quotation would halfl
been natural had he followed the common interpretatio
Origen should therefore be henceforth excluded from t
list of Fathers cited in support of the common punctuation
It is even "probable," as Westcott and Hort maintain,
though " not certain," that he and Eusebius gave the pas-
sage a different construction.*
As regards Eusebius, the presumption is perhaps even
stronger than in the case of Origen. He has nowhere
quoted the passage; but in very numi;rous places in his
writings he uses ■*■ t^^ J7ii,T-ui'f'.(;f as a title exclusively belong-
ing to the Father, and insists upon this against the Sabe]-
lians.f I admit that these considerations are not decisive;
he and Origen may have given the passage an interpretation
similar to that of Hippolytus ; but, if they understood it to
relate to Christ, it is certainly strange that they have no-
where quoted it in their numerous writings.
The assumption that Iren;cus referred the last part of
this verse to Christ must be regarded as doubtful. The
only place where he has quoted it is //.nr. iii. i6. (al. i8.)
§ 3, where his text is preserved only in the OIJ Latin ver-
sion, which of course cannot determine the construction
which Iren.-eus put upon the Greek. He does not quote it
to prove that Christ is "iif.— the Gnostics gave the name Ot^
to their vEins, and also to the Demiurgus, — but to provi
the unity of the Christ with the man Jesus, in opposition )
the Gnostics who maintained that the /Eon Christ did nol
descend upon Jesus till his baptism. He had just i
inlEnded In ii>pty lo Iha AposioUc ConHiliuioiu in
\ra the ippllcalioD of Ihe phiue o eni TrayTi.iv tti
•• Mdiio p. 41] Olio." .-..., U) hk Afel. Cngm i
tSet, lot txvnfAe.Ot Sect. Tkroi. \. %, ■}, i, i\, lo; )L 1. 1, s (p|). 6ic. G] ■
g) c. 104 a, ,aj c, d), and a muIuEude oi alher plKcex, ■ome of vrhidi afd quoted in
now. The ippircnt enceplion, Hiil Eal. »ni. u. rdi- int jrilvTuv Siuv ipieriv h
litvai^ ("d. ViilM,), » « iaiM ftading Burion, ScbmK'", Lxmrner. iiid Dmiotl' a
XplorAi- ™ Ih* auihoriij of impn'mil MSS i on Ibe oih.r hmd HtiTHthtn in
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. S 39 1
(§ 2) quoted Matt., i. i8 for this purpose (reading rovSi
xpiorov) ; he now quotes Rom. i. 3, 4 ; ix. 5 ; and Gal. iv.
4, 5, for the same purpose. His argument rests on the f?' wt^
6 xpurrk TO mTa odpKa, and not on the last part of the verse, on
which he makes no remark. Throughout his work against
Heresies, and very often, Irenaeiis uses the title "the God
over all" as the exclusive designation of the Father*
The passage in which Hippolytus quotes Rom. ix. 5 {Cont.
Noet. c. 6) has already been noticed. (See above, pp. 378,
383.) The Noetians and Patripassians, according to him,
quoted the text to prove the identity of Christ with the
Father. (Ibid. cc. 2, 3.) He complains that they treat the
words uovoK(j?.L>r (or ^ovdnuia) ; comp. Epiph. Hicr. Ivii. 2. West-
cott and Hort understand this to mean that they read all
the words from Koik^uv to aluva^ "as a single clause." Sem-
ler once took nearly the same view {/fist. Eiiil. zn S. J.
Baumgarten's Unters, thcol. Streitigkeitcn, 1762, 1. 217, n.
205), but was afterwards doubtful about it {ibid. p. ;236, n.
235). Fabricius in his note on the passage, and Salmond
in his translation of Hippolytus in the Ante-Nicene Christ.
Library, ix. 53, give a very different explanation. To
discuss the matter here would require too much space, but
it seemed well to mention it. Possibly in Cont. Noc't. c. 6
ev7/)yrir6^ is misplaced through the mistake of a scribe, and
should stand before ^k roh^ nictvag.
Dean Burgon refers also to " Phil. 339," that is to the
Philosophumcna or Ref. omn. Haer. x. 34, ad fin. But o/card
TTQV7UV Bt6q there should not, I think, be alleged as a quotation
of Rom. ix. 5 applied to Christ. Bunsen's easy emendation
of the passage {Anal. Ante-Nic. i. 392 ; comp. his Hippolytns,
2d ed., i. 413) seems to me the true reading, and is sup-
ported by X. 33, ad init. (p. 334), where oiroc /^<)wc m\ Kara 7rdvra)i>
Otdf is distinguished from the Logos. Hippolytus could
hardly have called Christ *' t/ie God over all." (See p. 378,
note *.)
•Semler (£> ad GrUsbachium, 1770, p. 77 ff.; Antwort^ etc , 1770, p. 45) and Whitby
{Dug. madfstae, p 135 f.) take the above view of this passage of Irenxus. For the use of the
designation " God over all/* see Iren. f/arr ii. 5. § 4 ; 6. (ai. 5 ) §§ 2, 3 J »» 'al. la.) § x, its ;
13. (at. 18.) §8; a4. (a'. 41 ) § a ; 2'^ (»l-4>)§i5; i". 8 § 3 J iv. 5. (al 10 ) § i ; v. 18. § i, a.:d
nany other passages. (Cf. iv. 1. § i.)
39 » CRITICAL ESSAYS
I note in passing that Tischendorf cites incorrectly f4
the reference of the o-^, etc., to Christ "Meth.
(Gall 3)." The passage referred to is not from the Com-
vivium, but from the discourse of the Pseudo-Methodius Z><r
Simfoiie cl Amia, c. i, ad fin., where we have the mere
expression -if. nn-i*--™ MilS -"•' "■ ffdi-rui' fW' afyt,iWi3aatv. ThlS l
also one of Dean Burgon's authorities ; but, as the writal
explains himself (c. 2, ad fin.), he seems to mean by '
glory of the God over all " not the glory of the Son considl
ered by himself, but the glory of the whole Trinity. The
is no quotation of Rom. ix. 5 here.
The passage of Amphilochius (Gallandi vi. 409, or Mi|
xxxix. 101) which Tischendorf adduces, with a videfur, :
reference of Rom. ix. 5 to the Father, seems analogous 1
the above, and hardly proves anything on one side or th^
other.
In the quotation of Rom. ix. 5 in the Antiochene Epistldj
to Paul of Samosata (see above, p. 388) it is probable thai
the six bishops made a slight pause at iriiT,^!.. The suborr
nation of the Son is very strongly expressed in the Epistle:
Among other things it is said, "To think that the God c
the universe is called a messenger {":>"•••) is impious; bud
the Son is the messenger of the Father, being himself Lore
and God." (Routh, iif supra, p. 294.)
The Emperor Julian has already been referred to. (S
above, p. 346, note.) He was as good a judge of the coOi
struction of a Greek sentence as Cyril of Alexandria, or any
other of the Fathers, and quite as likely to interpret impar-^
tially. Well acquainted with the writings of the Christian^!
he could hardly have overlooked passages so frequently
quoted in the controversies on the nature of Christ as Roin,V
ix. 5 and Tit. ii. 13. But he did not find the title ^^k givet^
to Christ in these or any other places if.g., I Tim. i
in the writings of Paul.
Among the orthodox Greek Fathers, Diodorus (of Antioc^i
and Tarsus) and Photius appear to have understood the i
etc., to refer to God. The comment of Diodorus on this
passage is preserved in the important Catena on the Epistlol
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 393
to the Romans published by Cramer from a MS. in the
Bodleian Library (Cramer's CatencB in N, 7"., vol. iv., Oxon.
1844). The essential part of it reads : ku rb fiiyiarov, k^ 6v 6
XptffTor, rb Kara adpaa. k^ avruv, ^Jjaiv, 6 ;fp/(rr<if. Gcdf 6e ov /idvov avTov, aX?M
Kotvy kiri irdvTuv iffri Oedc. (p. 1 62.) This appears to mean, " From
them, he says, is the Messiah. But God belongs not to
them alone, but is God over all men alike." Meyer, Tho-
luck, Philippi, and Schultz understand it as relating to the
Father. I do not perceive that this reference is affected by
the fact that Theodore of Mopsuestia, a pupil of Diodorus,
who has borrowed much of the language of this comment,
gives the last part a different turn : nai rb 6^ fityurrov, €$ airCiv Kai 6
Xftiorb^ rb Kara adpKa, 6f etrrt debc vv uovov avruv^ dXkd KOLVff itdvTiiv. (MignC,
Patrol, Gr. Ixvi. 833.) Had it been the purpose of Diodorus
to express this meaning, he would probably have inserted
iariv after ^c^f M, or have written 6f kanv. The omission of the
article before Oeo^ creates no difficulty in taking ^fof as the
subject of the sentence. It is often omitted in such a case
by these later Greek writers.*
Diodorus, it will be remembered, was the founder of
a comparatively rational, grammatico-historical, and logical
school of interpretation, in opposition to the arbitrary exe-
gesis of Scripture which had prevailed among the Fathers.
The passage in Photius {Cont, Manich. iii. 14) appears to
be unequivocal: "He cries with a loud voice, — whose are
the covefiantSf and the laws {(u vouodEaiai)^ and the promises, and
the holy services (al Xarpua') ; and showing most clearly whence
these things are and on whose providence they have de-
pended [he adds], o ^^ tm izavruv Ocbg €v7^oytjrbq dq Tovq aluvag. Wur/v"
"So the laws and the holy services and the promises, in
the observance of which the fathers pleased God, and from
whom as to his humanity sprang the Messiah, are from the
God over all, rov ettI ttui'tup eeoi:' (Migne, Patrol. Gr. cii. 157.)
Schultz, in the essay so often referred to (p. 480, note 2),
says that Theodulus in loc. seems to refer the last part of
*$ee, for example, Theodore of Mopsuestia on Rom. ii. 15; viii. 28; ix. to, 14 3£r, 23-24,
as; XL a. (Migne, Ixvi. coll. 789»>, 832*, %si^, 836c, 840b, 841c, 84 id, 852* ) See also Cramer,
p. II, 1. 30; 15, 1. 15 ; aj, 1. 24 ; 54. 1- 3>> etc.
394 CRITICAL ESSAYS
our verse to God. He misapprehends the meaning of the
passage in Theodulus, and does not observe that it is taken
from CEcumenius.* The Enarratio in Ep, ad Romanos,
which, in a Latin translation, passes under the name of
Theodulus. does not belong to the presbyter or bishop in
Coele-Syria of that name, who died a.d. 492, but is a very
late Catena. (See Cave.)
A few words now respecting the Latin Fathers who have
quoted Rom. ix. 5.
Tertullian is the first. He quotes it once as below, and
once {Prax. c. 15) with super omnia before deiis,^ Cyprian
simply cites the passage to prove that Christ is dcus (qui
est super omnia dens bene die tus in scecula), without remark.
{Tcstint. ii. 6.) Novatian has already been spoken of. (See
above, p. 378, note *.)
I know of no trace of the reference of the last part of the
verse to God among the Latin writers, except what may be
implied in the language of the Pseudo-Ambrosius (Arabro-
siaster), commonly identified with Hilary the deacon, in his
commentary on the Epistle. He remarks : ** Si quis autem
non putat de Christo dictum, qjii est Dens, det personam de
qua dictum est. De patre enim Deo hoc loco mentio facta
non est." This is repeated in the commentary of Rabanus
Maurus (Migne, Patrol. Lat. cxi. col. 1482). The same in
substance appears in the Qnaest. Vet. et Nov. Test.^ qu. 91,
formerly ascribed to Augustine, and printed in the Bene-
dictine edition of his works, 0pp. in. ii. 2915, ed. Bened.
alt. : " Sed forte ad Patris personam pertinere dicatur. Sed
• See Biblioth. max. i>et. Patrum, viii. 605, or the Monumenta S. Patrum Orthodox-
ographa of Gryna-us, ii. 1163,
t After remarkiriK that he never speaks of Gods or Lords, but following the Apostle, when
the Father and Son are to be named together, calls the Father God and Jesus Christ Lord, he
says: " Solum autem Christum potero deum dicere, sicul idem apo-stolus. Ex quihus Ckristus,
qui est, inquit, dtus su/>er omnia benedictus in aevum otnne. Nam et radium solis seorsum
solem vocabo ; solem autem nominans, cuius est radius, non statim et radium solem appellabo.'*
{Prax. c. 13, ed. Oehler.) This accords with his language elsewhere: " Prolulit deus sermonem
. . . sicut radix fruticem, et fons tiuvium, et sol radium." {Prax. c. 8.) ** Cum radius ex sole
porrieilur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio . . . nee separatur substantia, sed extendilur.'*
{Apologet. c. 21.) " Pater tot* substantia est; tilius vero derivaiio totius et portio; sicut ipse
protiietur, Quia pater maior me <rj/ " {Prax. c 9.) '* Scrmo deus, quia ex dec. . . . Quodsi
deus dei tanquam substaniiva res, non ent ip>e deus [ajru/Ztof], sed hactenus deus, qua ex
ipsius substantia, ui portio aliqua totius." {Prax. c. 26.)
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 395
hoc loco nulla est paterni nominis mentio. Ideoque si de
Christo dictum negatur, persona cui competat detur." (This
work is generally ascribed to the Hilary mentioned above.)
The writer seems to have heard of those who interpreted
the passage of God ; and, relying apparently upon the Latin
version, he meets their interpretation of the Greek with a
very unintelligent objection.
The Greek Fathers in Mr. Burgon's list who have not
already been mentioned are the following : Athanasius,
Basil, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Theodorus
Mops., Eustathius, Eulogius, Theophilus Alex., Nestorius,
Theodotus of Ancyra, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gelasius
Cyz., Anastasius Ant., Leontius Byz., Maximus. Of the
Latins, Ambrose, Hilary. Jerome, Victorinus, the Brevia-
rium, Marius Mercator, Cassian, Alcimus Avit., Fulgentius,
Ferrandus.
"Against such a torrent of Patristic testimony," says Mr.
Burgon, " it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian
interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such promi-
nence, can stand."
But to what does it all amount ? Simply to the fact that
a mass of writers, to the judgment of most of whom an
intelligent scholar would attach very little weight in any
question of exegesis, have followed that construction of an
ambiguous passage which suited their theological opinions.
Out of the whole list, the two, I suppose, who would be
most generally selected as distinguished from the rest for
sobriety and good sense in interpretation are Chrysostom
and Theodoret. Yet both of them adopted that excessively
unnatural, if not impossible, construction of 2 Cor. iv. 4 of
which I have spoken above. (See p. 387.)
The same general considerations apply to the ancient
versions, some of which are ambiguous here, as Westcott
and Hort remark, though the translators probably intended
to have the last part of the verse understood of Christ.
We will now dismiss the Fathers, and notice some facts
belonging to the more recent history of the interpretation of
39* CRITICAL ESSAVS
our passage.* I take up the different constructions in the
order in which they are numbered above, p. 335.
The three most important recent discussions of the pas-
sage outside of the commentaries, before that of Dr. Dwight.
are by Dr. Hermann Schultz. in the JahrbiUher f. detifschf
Theol., 1868, pp. 463-506. who defends constructions Nrs.
r-3, with a slight preference for No, 1 (p. 483) ; Dr. C. L.
Wilibald Grimm, in Hilgetifeld's Z^itschr. / wiss. Theol.,
1869, pp. 311-322, who adopts No. 5; and Pastor Ernst
Harmsen. ibid, 1872, pp. 510-521, who adopts No. 7.
There is a brief discussion of the passage by Dr. G. Vance
Smith, Canon Farrar, and Dr. Sanday. in the Expositor for
May. r879, ix. 3)7-405, and September, rS7g. x. 232-238.
There was a more extended debate in the Tidependent (Xeiv
York) for Aug. 12, Oct. 14, 21, 28, and Nov. 18. 1S58. in
which Dr. John Proudfit (anonymously), the Rev. Joseph
P. Thompson {the editor), Dr. Z. S. Barstow, and E. A.
took part.
1-3. It would be idle to give a list of the supporters of
Nos. 1-3, who refer the clause in question to Christ. Among
the commentators, perhaps the m;jre eminent and best known
are Calvin, Beza, Hammond, LeClerc, Limborch, Bengel.
Michaelis, Koppe, Flatt. Tholuck. Olshausen, Stuart. Hodge.
Phtlippi, Lange (with Schaff and Riddle). Hofmann. Weiss,
Godet, Aiford. Vaughan, Sanday (very doubtfully), Gifford.
That the Romm Catholic commentators, as Estius, Klee,
Stengel, Reithmayr, Maier, Beelen. Bisping (not very posi-
tively), Jatho, Klofutar {iSSo), should adopt this explana-
tion, is almost a matter of course. This construction of
the verse is accepted by all the Fratres Poloni. who did not
hesitate to give the name God to Christ, and to worship
him, recognizing of course the supremacy of the Father, to
whom they applied the name God in a higher sense ; so
i»nnir> ii pvcn b:r Wolt iCmmt) lod LGicDthil KBOUvirr
nuce tecEni, He Uini. md EipcciaUr Schuhi in Ibc artielt u
llie mmmdnlilora, Mc,er lul V.n Hengd. E, F. Q Oerul
6 ff ) (E1VH X bripf iccognr of ih« CDntrovenf exciled b^ '
imcd bj Schulri, tjpfci^ly Hin'. Orirnl. u. ,itg Siii
• r.fr.
Art:
(/H.
■im.
• J«).
ohcn
(«r
«f./«i..
Himb
"-'<^^d
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 397
Socinus,* Opp, ii. 581, 582, 600 a; cf. ii. 377 f. ; John Crell,
in loc, 0pp. i. 147; also Respons, ad Grotiutn, 0pp. iv. 230 b;
De Uno Deo Patre^ p. 23 a; De Deo ejusque Attrib. p. 35 b;
Eth. Christ, p. 348 a; Schlichting {Lat, Slichtingius), Comm.
post, i. 254; Wolzogen, Opp, i. 710, 712 ; ii. 301 ; iii. 5 ; Sam.
Przipcovius or Przpkowsky in loc, p. 51. So also the Raco-
vian Catechism, §§ 159, 160.
With a singular disregard of these historical facts, Dean
Burgon holds up his hands in holy horror at the marginal
renderings of the Revised New Testament at Rom. ix. 5,
ascribed to "some modern Interpreters," and stigmatizes
them as *^the Socinian gloss'' \ (Quart, Rev., Jan., 1882,
p. 54 [Revision Revised, p. 211].) The Italics are his. He
seems throughout his article to imagine himself to be writ-
ing for readers who will take an opprobrious epithet for an
argument. The real " Socinian gloss " is adopted, and the
arguments for it are repeated, as we have seen, by the latest
prominent defender of the construction which Mr. Burgon
himself maintains. Among English commentators, compare
Macknight on the passage.
A slight qualification or supplement of the above state-
ment is, however, required. Schlichting, though he does
not object to the common construction, misled by Erasmus,
is inclined to suspect the genuineness of the word <9fOf. It is
important, in reference to the history of the interpretation
of this passage, to observe that the statement of Erasmus,
in regard to the omission of this word in the quotations
by some of the Fathers, led many astray; among others,
Grotius, who also incorrectly represents the word God as
wanting in the Syriac version. Schoettgen misrepresented
the case still worse, saying, by mistake of course, " Hoc
verbum quamplurimi Codices, quidam etiam ex Patribus, non
habent."
*Sodnus speaks of the punctuation and construction proposed by Erasmus, a believer in the
deity of Christ, which makes the v ur, etc., a doxology to God, the Father, and says: " Non est
ulia cmnaa, cur haec interpretatio, vel potius lectio et interpunctio Erasmi rejici posse Tideatur;
nisi una tantum, quam Adversarii non afferunt ; neque enim illam animadvertenint. Ea est,
quod, cum simplex nomen Benedictus idem significat quod Benedictus sit, semper fere solet ante<
pom ei, ad quem refertur, perraro autem postponi."
Some of those who are so shocked at what they call " Socinian glosses " might perhaps learn
a Itaioii of candor and fairness from this heretic.
39^ CRITICAL ESSAYS
Schlichting also suggests, as what "venire alicui in
mentem posset," the somewhat famous conjecture of <^v6 for
o t'ji; but rejects it. It was taken up afterwards, however, by
a man far inferior in judgment, Samuel Crell (not to be con-
founded with the eminent commentator), in the Inituim Ev.
S. Joannis restitutiim (1726), published under the pseu-
donym of L. M. Artemonius. Its superficial plausibility
seems to have fascinated many ; among them Whitby {Last
Thoughts), Jackson of Leicester {AnJiot. ad Noi^at, p. 341),
John Taylor of Norwich, Goadby, Wakefield {Enquiry),
Bishop Edmund Law (Wakefield's Memoirs, i. 447), Bel-
sham {Epistles of Paul), John Jones, and David Schulz (so
says Baumgarten-Crusius). Even Doddridge and Harwood
speak of it as ** ingenious," and Olshauscn calls it " scharf-
sinnig." It is quite indefensible.
Among the writers on Biblical Theology, Usteri {Paulin.
Lehrbegr,, 5te Ausg., 1834, p. 324 f.) refers the clause in
question to Christ, but strongly expresses his sense of the
great difficulties which this involves. He is influenced es-
pecially by Riickert (1831), who afterwards changed his
mind. Messner (1856, p. 236 f.) regards this reference as
probable, though not certain ; somewhat more doubtful is
C. F. Schmid (2d cd., 1859, p. 540 f., or p. 475 f. Eng.
trans.). Dorner in his recent work, Systcui der Christ I.
Glaiibaislchrc (1879), i. 345, only ventures to say that the
reference to Christ is '' the most natural." Schott, August
Hahn, De Wette, Reuss, Ritschl, are sometimes cited as
supporting this construction ; but later they all went over
to the other side. See below, under No. 7.
For the most elaborate defences of the construction we
are considering, besides those which have already been men-
tioned, one may consult Dr. John Pye Smith's Scripture
Tcstiviouy to the Messiah, 5th ed. (1859), vol. ii. pp. 370-
377, 401-405, and the commentaries of Flatt (from whom
Professor Stuart has borrowed larL,^ely) and Philippi.
4. Construction No. 4 has already been sufficiently no-
ticed. (See above, p. Z'S}^.)
5. The construction which puts a colon or a period after
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 399
iravTuw, making the clause beginning with thog a doxology to
God, seems to have been first suggested by Erasmus in
the Annotations to his third edition of the Greek Testament
(1522), repeated in the fourth (1527). In his later writings,
and in the note in his last edition (1535), while recognizing
the possibility of this construction, he gave the preference
to No. 7.* It was adopted by Locke in his posthumous
Paraphrase, etc. (London, 1705, and often) : "and of them, as
to his fleshly extraction, Christ is come, he who is over all,
God be blessed for ever. Amen." Locke's construction was
preferred by Wetstein in the important note on the passage
in his Greek Testament, vol. ii. (1752), and was adopted by
Prof. L. J. C. Justi in Paulus's Memorabilieu, 1791, St. i.
pp. 1-26, treated more fully in his Vennischtc AbJiandlungcn,
2te Samml., 1798, pp. 309-346; also by E. F. C. Oertel,
Christologie (1792), p. 209 f. He has a pretty full discussion
of the passage (pp. 195-218). So by G. L. Bauer, BibI,
Tlieol, di's N. T,, Bd. iv. (1802), pp. ia-14, and by C. F.
Ammon ; for though in his Bibl. TheoL, 2te Ausg. (1801),
pp. 220-222, he does not decide between constructions No.
S and No. 7, he favors the former in his note on the passage
in the third edition of Koppe on Romans (1824). J. J. Stolz
adopts it in the fourth edition of his Ucbcrsctzung des N. T.
(1804), and the third edition of his Eriduterungen (1808), iii.
170-191. He gives there an interesting extract from Sem-
ler's Hist, u. krit. Saminlungcn iibcr die sogenanntcn Bcwcis-
stellen in dcr Dogmatik, St. ii. pp. 284-287. So De Wette
in the text of the third edition of his German translation
of the Bible (1839), though he gives constructions Nos. i
and 7 as alternative renderings ; in the note in the fourth
and last edition of his commentary on the Epistle (1847),
though undecided, he seems on the whole rather inclined
to No. 7. This construction (No. 5) is supported also by
Baumgarten-Crusius, a scholar to be spoken of with high
respect, in his Comm. on the Epistle (Jena, 1844), comp. his
Grundziige dcr bibl. TlieoL (1828), p. 385 f., and his Exeget.
Schriften zum N, T. 11. i. (Jena, 1844) p. 266, the latter cited
* Erasmi Opp.y Lugd. Bat. 1703, flf., vol. vi. 610 f. ; ix. 100a f., 1045 ^'
400 CRITICAL ESSAYS
by Ernesti. So by Schumann in his Ckristus (1852), ii. 545,
note ; H. Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, Vom Urspmnge d, Sunde nach
pauiin, Lchrgehalte, i. (1855) pp. 197-204; Marcker (cited by
Meyer), whose work I have not seen ; and Reuss, Les Epttres
Pauliniennes (1878), ii. 88.
The best defence of this view, perhaps, is to be found in
the article of Grimm, referred to above.
6. On construction No. 6, see above, p. 385 f.
7. Erasmus in his translation renders the words of the
last part of our verse thus : " et ii, ex quibus est Christus
quantum attinet ad carnem, qui est in omnibus deus lau-
dandus in secula, amen." His paraphrase seems a little am-
biguous.* But in the note in his last edition (1535), and
in his later writings, he clearly indicates his preference for
construction No. 7.! Bucer (or Butzer) in loc, (1536?). as
quoted by Wetstein, suggests this construction as an alter-
native rendering. Curcellaeus (Courcelles) in his edition of
the Greek Testament published in 1658 (also 1675, 1685,
1699) notes that *' Quidam addunt punctum post vocem <ya/>Ka.
quia si id quod sequitur cum praecedentibus connecteretur,
potius dicendum videatur ^r f<T7/, vel ^y <>, quam o uv."
Among those who have adopted or favored this construc-
tion are Whiston, in his Primitive Christianity Reviii' d, vol.
iv. (1711), p. 13 ff. ; and Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his Scripture
Doctrine of the Trinity, London, 17 1 2, 3d ed., 1732, p. 85 £f.
He gives also as admissible constructions No. 5 and No. 2,
but places No. 7 first. He was, as is well known, one of
the best classical scholars of his day, as well as one of the
ablest metaphysicians and theologians. So John Jackson
of Leicester, in his Antiot. ad Novatiannm (1726), p. 341,
^ " At Christus sic est homo, ut idem et Deus sit, non huius aut illius gentis peculiaris, sed
universDrum Deus, et idem cum patre Deus, qui [Christus? pater? or Pater cum Christo?] prae-
siidet omnibus, cuiusque inscrul.ibili consilio geruntur haec omnia, cui soh . . . debetur laus," etc
One suggestion of Erasmus is that the word "God" in the last clause may denote the whole
Trinity.
t See especially his Af>ol. adv. monachos quosdam // is^anos (y/ntttn in 1528), Opp. ix. 1043-
47: '* Ego coram Deo pr« titeor mihi videri Paulum hoc sensisse, quod modo significavimus, nec
hunc scrmonem propria ad Christum periinere, sed vel ad Patrem, vel ad totam Triniiatem "
(col. 1045). Comp. AVj/. ad Juvenem Gerontodidxscalum {yix'wx^u 1532), col. 1002: "ipsa res
lociuitur, verba Pauli nullum sensum cvidentius reddere quam hunc : Dfiis, qui est super omnia^
sit bemdictus in secula. Cui precalioni accinitur, Anun.^^ See aUo above, under No. 5.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 4OI
though captivated by the specious but worthless conjecture
of wv 6; Wetstein, as an alternative rendering, but rather pre-
ferring to place the stop after -dv-uv (see the end of his
note); Semler, Paraph, Ep. ad Rom, (1769), p. 114!!., and
in many other writings ; on the literature of the Semler con-
troversy, see the references given above, p. 396 n. Semler
was not so well acquainted with the writings of the later as
with those of the earlier Fathers, and in this part of the
field of debate his adversaries had the advantage. But he
gave a stimulus to a freer and more impartial treatment of
the question. Eckermann adopted the construction we are
now considering in the second edition (1795) of his Theolo-
gische Beytrdge, Bd. I. St. iii. pp. 160-162, though in the
first edition he had opposed it.
Coming now to the present century, we find this construc-
tion adopted by the commentators C. F. Boehme (Lips.
1806), and H. E. G. Paul us, Des Apostcls Pan I us Lehr-Bricfe
an die Galater- und Romer-Christcn (Heidelb. 1831), where
he translates (p. 102) : ** Der iiber alle (Juden und Heiden)
seyende Gott sey gepriesen auf (alle) die Zeitalter hinaus " ;
by Professor J. F. Winzer of Leipzig in a Programma on
Rom. ix. i-S (Lips. 1832). which I have not seen, but find
highly praised ; and Karl Schrader, Der Apostel Paulus,
Theil iii. (1833), P- 7S» and Theil iv. (1835), p. 355. He
translates, ** Der iiber Allem Seiende (der welcher iiber
AUem ist,) Gott, gelobt (sei gelobt) in Ewigkeit ! ** It is
adopted in three commentaries of remarkable independence
and ability which appeared in 1834, namely : those of Pro-
fessor J. G. Reiche of Gottingen, whose note (Theil ii. pp.
268-278) is one of the fullest and best discussions of the
passage, though he makes some mistakes about the Fathers ;
Professor Eduard Koellner of Gottingen ; and Dr. Conrad
Glockler, whom Professor Stuart calls " a Nicenian " as re-
gards his theol(;^ical position.. K. G. Bretschneider, in the
fourth edition of his Handbucfi der Dogmatik (1838), i. 604 f.,
adopts the same construction, though in the earlier editions
of this work he had referred the ^e<Jc to Christ. He trans-
lates: "Der Herr iiber alles, Gott, sei gepriesen in Ewig-
keit." In 1839, Professor L. J. Riickert of Jena, in
second edition of his elaborate and valuable commenti
(vol. ii. pp. 13-17), discusses the passage fully, and though
in the first edition (1831) he had strenuously contended for
the reference of the last part of the verse to Christ, now
pronounces the construction which makes it a doxology to
God "far more probable," This year is also signalized in
the history of the interpretation of our passage by the pub-
lication of vol. ii, of the commentary of Professor C. F. A.
Fritzsche of Rostock, who discusses the passage in a mas-
terly manner (pp. 260-275). His translation has been given
above, p. 354. In the fourth edition of his Greek Testament
with a Latin version, published in (839, Professor H. A,
Schott of Jena adopted the punctuation and construction
which make the clause beginning with "^v a doxology to
God, though in previous editions he had followed the com-
mon construction. In his essay De Invocationejesu Christi
Panic. I. (1843), p. 8. the highly esteemed commentator Dr.
Friedrich Liicke, Professor at G.ittingen, refers the last part
of our verse to God. Professor A. L. G. Krehl, of Leipzig,
docs the same in his Drr Brief an die Romrr ausgc/cgt,
u. s. w. (1845), p. 322, though in an earlier work, Neittest.
Hand-ivorterbuch ([843), art. Christus, p. 1 14, he had cited
Rom. ix. 5 in proof that Christ is called God.
Baur, who makes the passage a doxology to God, has
some valuable remarks upon it in his Paulus (1845), p. 624
f., 2te Aufl. (1866-67), i'- 263 f. ; comp. his Leiire von dc-r
Drcicinigkeit (1841), i. 84, note, and Neuhst. Theol (1864),
p. 194. Zeller agrees with him {Theol. JtihrbiUher, 1842.
p. 55). So J. F. Rabiger, a believer in the divine nature of
Christ, in his De Christologia Paulina contra Baurium Com-
meiilatio (1S52), pp. 26-28.
We may notice here the great commentators De We)
and Meyer. De Wette, not perfectly satisfied with
view, yet wavers between constructions Nos. 5 and 7; i
above under No. 5. In his BOii. D.'gtnatik, 3te Aufl. (1831J
p. 249, and in the second edition of his translation of 1
New Testament (1833), he had taken the name " God " hei
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 403
as a designation of Christ ; but in the third edition of his
translation (1839) he makes it begin a doxology. Meyer in
his Das N. 71 griechisch mit einer ncuen detttschen Uebersetz-
ung (1829) followed the common construction; but in the
first edition of his Contm, (1836), and all later editions, he
makes the passage a doxology to God. His collaborator,
Huther, maintains in his note on Titus ii. 13 that the name
^ti>^ is not given to Christ in any of the New Testament
Epistles.
In 1855 appeared the first edition of Jowett's work on
four of the Epistles of Paul (2d ed., 1859). He translates:
"God, who is over all, is blessed for ever. Amen.*' So
Bishop Colenso, St, Paul's Ep, to the Romans, etc., London,
1861 ; Am. ed.. New York, 1863.
Ewald, Die Scndschreiben des Ap, Panlus, u. s. w. (1857),
translates : ** der iiber alien ist Gott sei gelobet in die ewig-
keiten, Am6n !" (p. 323 ; comp. p. 398 f.) See also his Die
Lehre der Bibcl von Gott, Bd. iii. (1874), p. 416, n. 3. Pro-
fessor J. H. Scholten of Leyden, in his Dogmatices Christ.
Imtia, ed. 2da, Lugd. Bat. 1858, p. 193 f., adopts the same
construction. So Athanase Coquerel, Christo/ogie (Paris,
1858), i. 76, note. So the celebrated Dutch commentator.
Van Hengel, who in tome ii. of his Interpretatio (1859), pp.
343-360, discusses the passage very fully. He mentions
some Dutch scholars that agree with him, as Vissering and
Scheffer (Godgel. Bijdragen 1853 and 1854), whose writings
I have not seen. The eminent Danish commentator. Dr.
H. N. Clausen, Pauli Brev til Roincrne fortolket (Copen-
hagen, 1863), p. 124, translates: "Han som er over Alt,
Gud, (eller, " Gud, som er over Alt ") vsere priset i Ev-
ighed ! " (He is the author of the Heimencutik, The Ger-
mans spell his name Klausen.) Holtzmann, in his transla-
tion of the Epistle in Bunsen's Bibelwcrk (1864), vol. iv.,
gives the same construction to the passage ; and so Profes-
sor Willibald Beyschlag of Halle, in his Chris tologie des
N, T.f Berlin, 1866, p. 209 f.
Professor R. A. Lipsius of Jena, in the Protestanten-Bibel
Neuen Testamentes (1872-73), p. 572, translates: "Der da
404 CRITICAL ESSAYS
ist iiber Alles, Gott, sei gelobt in Ewigkeit"; Volkmar,
Romeririef (ZuTicb, 1875), p. 32: " Der iiber Allen seiendc
Gott sei gelobt in Ewigkeit!" His comment is (p. 97):
"Der Gott, der iiber a//en (Volkern) waltet, sei dafiir ge-
priesen, dass er aus Israel den Heiland (fiir AUe) hervor-
gehen liess." The Rev. John H. Godwin, "Hon. Prof.
New Coll., Lond.," and Congregational Lecturer, translates,
"God who is over all be praised for ever. Amen," and
has a good note. {Ep. to Rom., London, 1873.) Professor
Lewis Campbell, the editor of Sophocles, in the Contetnpo-
raty Review for August, 1876, p. 484, adopts the rendering
of Professor Jowett. The Rev. Joseph Agar Beet, Wesleyan
Methodist, in a Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
of very marked ability {London, 1877, 2d ed., 1881), defends
this view in an excellent note (pp. 267-272, 2d ed.). The
same construction is followed in Herm. Bartels's Exeget.
UebersetZHtig des Brief es, etc. (Dessau, 187S), which I men-
tion because Professor Woldemar Schmidt of Leipzig, in a
notice of the book (Theol. Literaturzeituug, 1879, No. 22),
expresses his approval of this. C. Holsten, in an article in
thsjahrbiickcrf.prol. Thcoi, 1879, p. 683, translates : "Der
iiber alien Volkern waltende Gott (der doch Israels Volk so
begnadet hat) sei gepriesen in Ewigkeit ! "
Some of the best recent translations adopt this construc-
tion of the passage ; e.g. H:t Nieitwe Testament, etc. (pub-
lished by the authority of the General Synod of the Dutch
Reformed Church), Amsterdam, i868:"Hij, die over alles
is, God, zij geprezen tot in eeuwigheid ! " and the versions
by Dr. George R. Noyes (Boston, 1869), Hugues Oltramare
(Gentve, 1872), "Que celui qui gouverne toutes choses,
Dieu, en soit b^ni ^ternellement !" Carl Weizsacker, Das
N. T. uebcrsctst, Tiibingen, 1875, and Dr. Samuel Davidson,
London, 1875, 2d ed. 1S76.
No one who knew the scholarship and the impartiality of
the late Dr. Noyes will wonder that I have cited him here.
A dispassionate, judicial spirit in the examination of such
questions as the one before us is not the exclusive posses-
sion of the Dean of Chichester and of "the Church" in
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 405
distinction from "the Sects," though there are many noble
examples of it in the Church of England.
Among critical editors of the Greek Testament who have
placed a period after aApKa, making the passage a doxology to
God, I may mention Harwood (1776), Lachmann (1831-50),
Schott (4th ed., 1839). Tischendorf (1841-73), Muralt (1846-
48), Buttmann (1856-67), Aug. Hahn, assisted by his son
G. L. Hahn (1861), Kuenen and Cobet (1861), and Westcott
and Hort (1881) in their margin, representing the judgment
of Dr. Hort.
To these authorities may be added the names of the gram-
marians Winer and Wilke. See Winer, Gram,y 7te Aufl.,
1867, §§ 61, 3, e., and 64, 2, b., pp. 513, 545, or 551, 586
Thayer, 690, 733 Moulton; and Wilke, Hermeneutik (1844),
ii. 88.
It is worthy of notice that many scholars who had already
in their publications adopted or even strongly contended
for the common construction of this passage, afterwards
saw reason to change their minds. Such was the case
with Eckermann, De Wette, Meyer, Ruckert, Bretschneider,
Schott, Krehl, Hahn (perhaps both father and son) ; and it
is so with Ritschl, as I am assured by a very intelligent
student (the Rev. Alfred Gooding), who took full notes of
his exegetical lectures on Romans in the semester of 1879-
80. I know of only one instance of a conversion in the
opposite direction, that of Dr. G. V. Lechler, who, in the
first edition of his Das apost. ?/. das nacliapost. Zeitalter
(185 1), pp. 38, 39, made the last part of the verse a doxology
to God, but in the second edition (1857), P- ^3 f- [s-'^d 3d
ed. (1886), Eng. trans., vol. ii. p. 27 f.], applies it to Christ.
He expressly admits, however, as regards the two opposing
views, that "sprachlich und logisch sind beide gleichbe-
rechtigt."
" The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socin-
ians in their perversions of this passage," says the Scotch
commentator Haldane, " more fully manifest the depravity
of human nature, and the rooted enmity of the carnal mind
406 CRITICAL ESSAYS
against God, than the grossest works of the flesh." * ** The
dishonest shifts/' says Dean Burgon, ** by which unbelievers
seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to
refute or deny, are paraded by our Revisionists in the
following terms." f (Here Mr. Burgon quotes the margin
of the Revised Version at Rom. ix. 5, regarding these render-
ings as "not entitled to notice in the margin of the N. T.,"
and their admission as " a very grave offence.") ^v r/f el, 6
Kpivuv al}.6TpLOv oiKirijv^ 6 Karijrycjp Ton/ dcJcA^v ^fiuv. (Rom. xiv. 4 J ReV.
xii. 10.)
In contrast with these utterances, not addressed to the
reason of men, and not adapted to promote Christian charity
or Christian humility, it is refreshing to read a discussion
so calm, so clear, so fair, and so able as that of Professor
Dwight.
NOTE A. (See p. 346.)
On the Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5 in Ancient AfSS.
In regard to the punctuation of this passage in ancient MSS., though
the matter is in itself of little importance, it may be well to correct
some current errors, especially as the supposed absence of a point
after aiipKa in the MSS. has been urged as an objection to the construc-
tion which makes the o ur, k. r. ?.. a doxoiogy to God. For example,
Dr. Gifford, the latest commentator, speaks of the stop after adftun as
found simply "in two or three inferior MSS."; while Mr. Burgon. in
the Quar/er/v Review for January. 1882, says " the oldest codices^ besides
the whole body of the cursives [the Italics are his], know nothing about
the method of * some modern Interpreters ' " (referring to the margin of
the Revised Version); and he remarks in a note, "C alone has a point
between 0 l^v l-X udvTuiv and Ofor uv.o)//7or tie rot-f aJwrar. But this is an
entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin." (p. 54.)
The facts of the case do not accord with these statements. In the
first place, C, according to Tischendorf's very careful edition of this
MS. (Lips. 1843), ^3^ "O point after Tairwr, and there can be little
doubt that such a stop exists only in Mr. Burgon's very lively imagina-
tion ; it does have, on the other hand, as Tischendorf's edition shows,
both a point and a space after adpKa, unquestionably a prima manu.
The Alexandrian MS. (A) has also a point after cci^kq^ as appears by
Woide's edition (1786), by the recent photograph published by the
• Exposition of the Ep. to the Romans, Am. reprint of the fifth Edinburgh edition, p. 454.
t The Quarter/y Revico for J«nunry. iR^2. p. 54 [sec The Revision Revised, p. 211J; see
also the same fir A|ri , 1^82, [> 370 f The Revaion Revised, p. 353 f.].
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5
407
British Museum (1879), and by the express testimony of Dr. Vance
Smith and of Dr. Sanday, who says, " The point is clearly marked, and
it is evidently by the first hand." {The Expositor, Sept., 1879, x. 235.)
This fact has been overlooked both by Tischendorf and by Westcolt
and Hon. There is, moreover, a point after ml^.Mi in the Vatican
MS. (BX which, though it does not appear in the Roman edition, is
amply attested by Dr. Vance Smith from personal inspection (TSir fj--
Pesilor, May, 1879, \x. 39J, comp. his The Spirit and the Word of
Christ, London, 1874, p. 138), and by others. This point also, from the
description of it, seems to be probably by the first hand, though more
careful wtaniinalion and comparison may be required to settle the tjues-
tion.* The Clermont MS. (D) ends a stichometric line at on/j'.r, but
this does not determine the construction of what follows. The Sinaitic
MS. has only a single point (after ™ru7, Rom. \x. 20) in the whole page
containing the passage, 4 cols, of 48 lines each, from Rom. viii. 38
ovrr iviBTuTa to ajiwutTrr, X. 3, inclusive. It is therefore neutral. The
same is true for a different reason of F and G, in which the numerous
points are distributed in the most arbiirar)' manner, so that, although
they each have a point after oilpnn, it counts for nothing. We have no
report of K, collated by Matthaei, who does not record the punctuation
of MSS. L, the remaining uncial, has a point after oii/Ma according to
Tischendorf. There is no break between o uu and i/ji/v in A, B, C.
As lo the cursive MSS., their punctuation has been very rarely
noted by collators. The sweeping statement of Mr. Burgon is made
•Tba Cicuai id ihr Vatic
«llemi<Mi la ill piliofr jphy, n
nrci iat«rpiiniiBBe, «ne ulla di
The Ulerhtnd.ol Ihe tonllio
MS. a™ III
«bya
lioiabla en
tIBlUip
imply 1 1
>r Ihe fi'U tiaad in TiKhendorTi fic-^miln,
p. 1448), wfaere there is Doipue, and alter Keirat in 1 Cor. ill- Tf (cod- p- 14^9)1 where Lbeipjice
k nEwUngtr (null. -HKheiidDrl wu unabls to luining oreluIlT Ihe pgnctuatuin ol ihe MS.
beroDil ihe end Qf iheGjipel oF Luke, but he obisrved Ihat puncIDillaawiit miKhndrelrequeni
ia the EiHHici than in the Ootpeli, I notice that in the Romas edition Ihera are twelTe poinli
OH Ihe page (p. 1415) ihM co mini Rom. ii. s. eitending (mm Rom. viii. 13 (tjwjrff W ^ijt«
jup. ii. 11, inelnuTe. There ii no em* ipaca itw aafiiia, but pethapiilai do« not dlniniib
ihc prolubiHiy that Ihe poinl ii by the fit« band. There ia no ejtira space, as we liave secn.afier
' ~ ' 4: and Tiachendnrf obsarvn Itfn. Ttil. Sin. p. ii(.) Ibat ~
(■4Sjl which CO
. irMr lbs words TO
i> the pi
]l ii evprasly stated t>t a
408 CRITICAL ESSAYS
entirely at random. But a point after odpKa is found in at least six
cursives, namely: No. 5 (collated by Scholz), 47 (by Griesbach), 71,
yj, 80, and 89 (by Birch); also in the beautiful Greek Praxapostolos or
Lectionary of the twelfth century belonging to the Library of Harvard
College (pp. 150, 151), and the fine Lectionary in the Astor Library
(p. 1 1 7), assigned to the eleventh century (?), formerly in the possession
of the Duke of Sussex. In the Harvard Lectionary there is also a
point after ^fof, which is not the case in the Astor Library MS.* A
point has also been noted after ^edf in 17 (Griesb.), and after -rdvruv in
71 (Birch).t
Incorrect statements are often made in regard to the extreme rarity
of punctuation in our oldest New Testament MSS. I therefore note
the fact that, on the page of the Alexandrian MS. (A) which contains
our passage, extending from Rom. viii. 21 d>jM. dta tov v-rora^avra to
TrpoOvGig rovtti'/iti' . . . ix. II » there are sixty-four points in Woide's
edition; in the Ephraem MS. (C) from Rom. viii. 27 o deepewufv to a/upf
ix. 5 in Tischendorf's edition there are forty-five points ; for B see
above. In the three pages of PauFs Epistles in B published by Tisch-
endorf line for line in his Appendix codd. celeb. Sin. Vat, Alex. (1867),
p. 1 44 J (Rom. i. 1-26) has fifteen points which he regards as a prima
manu; p. 1460 (Rom. xv. 24-xvi. 17) has thirty-five; p. 1506 (CoL
iv. 8-1, Thess. i. 8), with more than half a column blank, has seven-
teen. These pages, however, were selected partly on account of their
exceptional frequency of punctuation.
The truth is that this whole matter of punctuation in the ancient
MSS. is of exceedingly small importance, which might be shown more
fully, had not this paper already extended to an excessive length. In
the first place, we cannot infer with confidence the construction given
to the passage by the punctuator, the distribution of points even in the
oldest MSS. i-; so abnormal; in the second place, if we could, to how
much would his authority amount?
All that I have ari^ned from the point after nf'ipKn in A, B, C, L, etc.,
is that a pause after tlui' word was felt by ancient scribes to be natural.
adjoining letters," and that it was certainly much fainter than a point in the space after rjuuv
on the same page, " which was as black as the touched letters."
Since the above was printed, the point after onpKCi has been very carefully examined by
Professor Ubaldo l^baldi, of the Collcgio Romano, and Father Cozza, one of the editors of the
Vatican MS. Tliey compared it, at my suggestion, with the twelve points represented in the
printed edition of the MS. on the same page (1453), and also with the points, unquestionably
a prima fttanu, after tH^fi/T/Ud, Rom. iv. 4, and after hfitui, 2 Cor. iii. 15. The result is that
the point after anfiKit is undoubtedly by the first hand, the pale ink of the original being only
partially covered, as in other cases on the same page, by the black ink of the late scribe who
retouched the ancient writing throughout the MS.
* For a careful copy of that part of thi Astor Library MS. which contains Rom. ix. 4, 5,
I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. S. M. Jackson.
t It may be added, that out of six cunive MSS. examined for me bv Dr. C. R. Gregory, viz.,
Brit. Mus. Add. 511'), 7142, n'^w, 1 74'^<). Cuzon 71. 6, and Act. 20 (Paul. 25), all but the last
have a colun after a.'i)\:i, and the iast M.S. is almost illegible in this place. [See p. 432 below.]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 409
NOTE B. (Seep. 363.)
On the Distinction between evAoyrtTd^ and evAoyrffiivoc.
The distinction between evTuoyrrrd^ and ev?joyrfufvoc is dwelt upon by
Philo, De Migr. Abrah, c. 19, 0pp. i. 453, in his remarks on Gen. xii. 2.
The former word, according to him, describes one who by nature or
character is worthy of praise or blessing, n'Mtyiaq h^io^\ the latter, one
who is in fact praised « r blessed, whether rightfully or otherwise. In
other words, ev/Myr/rur, in doxologies, would be laudandus or laude
dignus ; ev/ioyvfjthmg iaudatus. So Theodore of Mopsuestia on Eph. i.
3 explains tv7ioyriT6^ as rov £7raiveia6at kuI BavfidCeaOai a^iog. (Migne, PatroL
CPr. Ixvi. 912.) It is true that in classical Greek verbals in -r<Jf, like
the Latin participles in -/«j, have generally a simply passive significa-
tion ; but we find exceptions, particularly in the later Greek, and espe-
cially in the case of words analogous in meaning to t\)>.oy7rr6q. See in
the Lexicons aiv^roq, kTraiveToc, vtzf paivrrd^, eyKUfiiaardc. I^i]7jurr6q, Oavfiaord^,
fiwapiard^ (2 Macc. vii. 24), fiefiTrrdg, feKrdCy fiiorrrd^, arvyr/rd^, vfiiT/Tdc. iVf-
pvuvrfTd^. On FTrniverdc and V'^/rrcJf, see Philo, ubi supra. (See also
Kiihner, Ausfilhrl. Gram.^ 2te Aufl., i. 716.) This view is confirmed
by the fact that we never find n'/oyri-o^ used like ev/.oyr/fih'og with nrj
or iffTu; wherever the verb is expressed with ei?/j)yrrr6g it is always in
the indicative. For example, in Rom. i. 25, rbv tcriaavra, 6c tonv ti^yM^-rfrb^
e<f Tov^ alijvac, it is surely more natural to take ev/xtyrrrSg as signifying "to
be praised," laudandus^ than actually " praised," Iaudatus, See Fritz-
sche and Van Hengel in loc, the latter of uhom cites the passage of
Philo referred to above. So in other doxologies we find the indica-
tive, ev/ oyi/Tdf d, Ps. cxviii. (cxix.) 12; Judith xiii. 17; Tob. iii. 11; viii.
5, 15, 16, 17; xi. 13; Orat. Azar. 2; Cant, trium puer. (Fritzsche), 28,
30-33; I Esdr. iv. 60; i Macc. iv. 20; Const. Apost. vii. 34, 49; Act.
Phil. c. 26; Lit. S. Jac. in Hammond's Antient Liturgies (Oxford,
1878), pp. 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 38, 39, 53, 54; Lit. Const. (Anaph. S.
Chrys.), p. 119; (Anaph. S. Basil.) p. 128; Lit. S. Marci, p. 179; and
%o ouv fT/.nyrror, 2 Cor. xi. 3 1 ; Lit. S. Marci. pp. 176, 192. This is the
view of many excellent scholars besides Fritzsche and Van Hengel;
as Erasmus, Beza (on Mark xiv. 61). Crell on Ro*p. ix. 5, Tholuck,
Riickert, and the lexicographers Schleusner, Wahl, Bretschneidcr, and
Robinson. On the other side there are indeed very eminent names, as
Grimm in his Lex., Meyer, De Wttte and Philippi on Rom. i. 25, and
Harless on Eph. i. 3 ; but I find no argument in any of them except
Harless, and his arguments seem to me of little weight. They rest
mainly on the assumption that tv'/nyr/rd^ is taken to mean "one who
must be praised" instead of "one to whom praise is due.** That the
latter conception of God may naturally be expressed in a doxology is
shown by Rev. iv, 1 1, a^in^ n, o Kifmn; K(ii tkor f'/iiui', '/a ?^/i' rr/v fio^av, k. r. >. ;
comp. Rev. v. 12. See also Ruinart, Acta Afar/yj////^ ed. Galura, ii.
41 0 CRITICAL ESSAYS
i86 (S. Bonifatius, §12), bn aoi Trpiirec u/iy, k.t.\ and iii. 62 (SS.
Tarachus, Probus, etc., §ii)» <""« ai"'v» Tp^n-ci 66^a, k. t. X.; Const. Ap.
vii. 48 ; Act. Barn. c. 26; Act. Joh. c. 22 ; Protev. Jac. c. 25, § 2, MSS.;
Act. Pil. A. c. 16, § 6y MSS. ; Narr. Jos. c. 5, § 4. I accordingly agree
with Buttmann, N. T. Gram.^ p. 120 (137 Thayer), that in doxologies
with evh}y7rr6q we are to supply ^otIv rather than £ln or iaru. The sen-
tence is therefore, in these cases, grammatically considered, declarative,
not optative, though the whole effect of the original is perhaps better
given by renderinir " be blessed " than *' is to be praised.'* Compare
further i Pet. iv. 11 ; Matt. vi. 13 (Text Rec.) ; Clem. Rom. Ep, ad Cor.
c. 58 (new addit. ; contra^ c. 32); and see Lightfoot's note on Gal. i. 5.
We must notice the difference in meaning, not affecting however
the position of the words, between eu?j)yti76g ia the Septuagint when
applied to men, as in Gen. (xii. 2, variante lectione) xxiv. 31 (v. 1.): xxvi.
29 (v. 1.); Deut. vii. 14; (xxviii. 6, v. 1.; xxxiii. 24, v. 1.); Judges xvii.
2 (v. 1); Ruth ii. 20; i Sam. xv. 13 (v. 1.); Judith xiii. 18 (v. 1.); Tobit
xi. 16 (in one text), xiii. 12 (in one text), 18 (do.), and when applied to
God. In the former case, it is used in the sense of " prospered,'*
"blessed" (namely, by God), and is to be taken, probably, in a simply
passive sense; evXoyrfulvog often occurs as a various reading. As
applied to God, I believe Philo's distinction holds good. In the par-
ticular case, however, to which he refers. Gen. xii. 2, where he reads
ei>/); //roi^ (so many other authorities, see Holmes), applied to Abraham,
his exposition is fanciful. In several cases the terms may seem to be
intentionally distinguished ; see Gen. xiv. 19, 20; i Sam. xxv. 32, 33;
Tobit xi. 16, Sin.; contra^ Judith xiii. iS.
One other remark may be made. In speaking of f:v7jo-)'Tir6g and sim-
ilar words in "exclamatory doxologies" (see Dr. Dwight as above, pp.
3'~39X we must guard against a fallacy. " Exclamatory " as applied to
sentences denotes a characteristic which exists in very different degrees
in different cases; where one printer would use a mark of exclamation,
another would often put a period. Because the placing of such a predi-
cate as f/'/ojy/ror first in the sentence gives or tends to give it an exclama-
tory character, we cannot straightway draw the inference that in all
doxologies in which the verb is omitted tr/'j>//ror, if used, must have the
first place. One may admit that in exclamatory doxologies n'/.oyrjrbg
always stands first, and deny that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is exclama-
tory. The elliptical word I suppose to be iorl, as in most at least of the
clauses immediately preceding.
XVII.
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5.
[From the Journal 0/ the Society of Biblical Literaturt and Exegesis for 1883.]
Since the publication of the articles on Rom. ix. 5 in
the Journal oi our Society for 1881, there have been several
discussions of the passage which seem worthy of notice,
especially as in some of them those articles have been
quoted with approval or criticised. The venerable pastor
and Professor of Theology in the University of Geneva,
Hugues Oltramare, has a long and able note upon it in his
recent elaborate and valuable Commentaire siir V Epitre aux
Romahts (2 vols., Geneva and Paris, 1881-82). He adopts
the doxological construction, placing a period after <ra/j/ca. In
England, the marginal note of the Revisers appears to have
given gfreat offence in certain quarters. ** I must press upon
every reader," says Canon Cook, "the duty — I use the word
•duty* emphatically — of reading the admirable note of Dr.
Gifford [on this passage] in the 'Speakers Commentary.*
I should scarcely have thought it credible, in face of the
unanswered and unanswerable arguments there urged, that
English divines would venture to have given their sanction
to one of the most pernicious and indefensible innovations
of rationalistic criticism.*' (The Revised Version of the First
Three Gospels^ London, 1882, p. 167, note.) Elsewhere he
speaks of "the very painful and offensive note on Romans
ix. 5, in the margin of the Revised Version ** (ibid,, p. 194).
It appears that Canon Cook sent a challenge to Canon
Kennedy, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of
Cambridge, to meet the arguments of Dr. Gifford. and that
this led to the publication of the first pamphlet to be
412 CRITICAL ESSAYS
noticed, the title of which is givm below.* Dr. Gifford re-
plied to Professor Kennedy in a pamphlet of sixty-six pages ;t
and Professor Kennedy rejoined in a pamphlet of seventy-
two pages, entitled Pauline Chris to/ogy. Part I. J We shall
probably have in due time a surrejoinder by Dr. Gifford, and
Part II. of Professor Kennedy's Pauline Christology,
Professor Kennedy translates the last part of Rom. ix. 5
as follows : ** And of whom is the Christ as concerning flesh.
He who is over all is God, worthy to be praised for ever.
Amen." {Sennon, etc., p. 19.) As was remarked above,
pp. 346, 385, there is no grammatical difficulty in this con-
struction. But I cannot adopt the view which Professor
Kennedy takes of the passage. He regards the last part
of Rom. ix. 5 as added by St. Paul "to win the ear and
gain the confidence of the Jews by declaring his adherence
to doctrines which they prized, a Jewish Messiah, and one
supreme God worthy to be praised for ever" (Sennon, p. 21 ;
comp. pp. 20, 25, and Pauline Christology^ I., p. 61.)
My objections to this view are : (i) that there was no need
of Paul's declaring his adherence to doctrines which neither
he nor any other Christian of that day was ever charged
with questioning, the Jewish origin of the Messiah, and the
unity of God ; and (2) that the last clause of verse 5, accord-
ing to Dr. Kennedy's construction, is not a direct affirma-
tion of monotheism in distinction from polytheism, though
monotheism is implied in the language.
Were Professor Kennedy's construction of the passage to
be adopted, I should rather regard the <> wr fxi -avruv as having
reference to God's providential government of the universe,
and especially to his providential dealings with the Jews, in
the revelations and privileges granted them with a view to
• Thf Divinity of Christ. A Sermon preached on Christmas Day, 1882, before the Univer-
sity of Cambridge. With an Appendix on Rom. ix. 5 and Til. ii. 13. By Benjamin Hall Ken-
nedy, D.D. . . . Printed by desire of the Vice-Chancelior. Cambridge, also London, 1883.
8vo. pp. vii, 32.
t . . . A Letter to the Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., ... in Reply to Criticisms on the
Interpretation of Rom. ix. 5, in "The Speaker's Commentary." By Edwin Hamilton Gifford,
D.D. . . . Cambridge, a/so London, 1S83. 8vo. pp. 66.
X Paultttir Christology, Part I. Examination of Romans ix. 5, being a Rejoinder to the
Rev. Dr. Gifford's Reply. By Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D. Cambidge, etc., 1883. 8va
pp. 7a.
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 413
the grand consummation of them all in the advent of the
Messiah, as the head of a new spiritual dispensation, em-
bracing all men upon equal terms. The wv, in this connec-
tion, may include the past, present, and future ; and we
might paraphrase as follows, supplying what may naturally
be supposed to have been in the mind of the Apostle : " He
who is over all," He who has presided over the whole his-
tory of the Jewish nation, and bestowed upon it its glorious
privileges ; He whose hand is in all that is now taking place,
who brings good out of evil, the conversion of the Gentiles
out of the temporary blindness and disobedience of the
Jews ; He whose promises will not fail, who has not cast off
his people, and who will finally make all things redound to
the glory of his wisdom and goodness, " is God, blessed for
ever. Amen."
But with this understanding of the bearing of the o <^v M
ndvTuv, it seems more natural to regard the enumeration of
the distinctive privileges of the Jews as ending with ff wv 6
xptoTdc rd Kara aapua, and to take the last clause as a doxology,
prompted by the same view of the all-comprehending, benefi-
cent providence of God, and the same devout and grateful
feeling, which inspired the doxology at the end of the
eleventh chapter.
Professor Kennedy is a devout believer in the doctrine of
the Trinity, and the deity of Christ ; and one cannot help
admiring the conscientiousness and sturdy honesty which
lead him, in the pure love of truth, to defend an unpop-
ular view of this mooted passage. He speaks feelingly of
"that mischievous terrorism, which, like carbonic dioxide
in a crowded and closed room, pervades and corrupts with
its stifling influence our British theological atmosphere."
"Men," he says, "who judge of this verse as I do, and who
publish and defend that judgment as I do, know that they
have to encounter the open rage of a few, the suppressed
displeasure of a great many, and the silence of masses, who,
whatever they may think on one side or the other, yet for
various private reasons consider ' golden silence ' the safe
course." {Pauline Christology^ I., p. 3 ; comp. pp. 34, 38.)
414 CRITICAL ESSAYS
It is not my purpose to enter into any detailed analysis
or criticism of Professor Kennedy's pamphlets. He urges
powerfully against Dr. Gifford's view the Pauline usage of
'?f<5f, and other considerations ; but on some minor points
takes positions which seem to me untenable, and exposes
himself to the keen criticism of his antagonist, who is not
slow to take advantage of any incautious expression. In
the Pauline Christology, I., pp. 22, 23, he presents, though
with some hesitation, an extraordinary view of the cause of
Paul's grief expressed in Rom. ix. 2, 3 ; but I will not stop
to discuss it. He also takes an indefensible position (/^/V/.,
pp. 26, 32) in regard to Cyril of Alexandria, and draws, I
conceive, an inference altogether false (pp. 28, 29) from the
passages in Origen against Celsus, viii. 12 and 72. The
former of these will be discussed hereafter in reply to Dr.
Gifford : in the latter we have the expression roi k-xi 'xmji 76yov
Kui Beo'v^ where the t-i iram belongs only to '^yov, not to Oeov also,
as Professor Kennedy seems to understand it ; comp. Cont.
Ccls. V. 4, ro'v , . , 'minxov Uyov Koi Oeo'v. Christ, according to Ori-
gen, is o tTTi rrdat Kvpio^y and o f^rt Traai ?.<J>'Of, but nOt o tTTi iraai (hd^,
which is, as Dr. Kennedy elsewhere observes, "the Father's
express title, applied by Origen to the supreme God nearly
100 times." {Pauline Christology, I., p. 27.)
Professor Oltramare had not seen the articles in our
Journal, but replies effectively on many points to the argu-
ments of Godet and Dr. Gifford. I only note here that
Oltramare, Dr. Gifford, and Professor Kennedy agree in tak-
ing o r/"^''^r, in ver. 5, not as a proper name, ** Christ," but in
the sense of "the Christ," "the Messiah," which the defi-
nite article suggests and the context requires, or at least
favors.
Dr. Gifford' s pamphlet is mainly occupied with a reply to
Dr. Kennedy ; but he bestows some criticisms on my paper
in the Journal for 1881, of which it seems to me well to
take notice. I regret to say that he also makes some com-
plaints, which I must also consider.
He complains, first {Letter, p. 27), that in quoting a sen-
tence of his {Journal^ p. 91 [p. 337 above]) I have omitted
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 415
altogether the first part, in which the cause of Paul's anguish
is said to be " the fall of his brethren."
I omitted it simply for the sake of brevity. I had already
assumed this as the cause of his grief, at the beginning of
the discussion {Journal^ p. gi [p. 336 f.]). I had expressly
mentioned it as such, twice, on the very page (p. 91 [see as
above]) containing my quotation from Dr. Gifford ; it was
implied in the clause "whom they have rejected," which I
did quote ; and it was a point about which there was no dis-
pute. Every reader would take it for granted that when
Paul's anguish was spoken of, it was his anguish on that
account. Under these circumstances I fail to perceive how
my omission of a part of Dr. Gifford*s sentence, in which
I had nothing to criticise, has given him any reasonable
ground of complaint.
Here I observe that Dr. Gifford passes over without
notice the first point of my criticism of his sentence (Jour-
nal, pp. 91, 92 [pp. 336, 337 above]). I still venture to
think that it is not unworthy of attention.
Dr. Gifford next complains that after having once quoted
the remainder of his sentence fully, I proceed to criticise it,
omitting in my second quotation the words " whom they had
rejected." I omitted this clause because, having been just
quoted, it seemed unnecessary to repeat it ; because it
formed no part of the particular privilege of the Jews of
which Dr. Gifford was speaking, the climax of which was
expressed by the words **the Divine Saviour" ; and because
its omission was likely to make the point of my criticism
strike the reader somewhat more forcibly. That I have
done Dr. Gifford no injustice seems to me clear from the
fact that, in the sentence quoted, **his anguish was deepened
[not caused]- most of all by the fact that their race gave
birth to the Divine Saviour," the phrase " his anguish " can
only mean "his anguish on account of the rejection of the
Messiah by the great majority of his countrymen." This
is also clearly implied in the first words of my criticism,
"Paul's grief for his unbelieving countrymen, then." Not a
word of my criticism, which Dr. Gifford seems to misunder-
41 6 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Stand, would be affected in the least by the insertion of the
omitted clause.
Two typographical errors in Dr. Gifford's pamphlet give
a false color to his complaint. He calls on the reader to
"observe the note of admiration in place of the all-important
words 'whom they had rejected.'" It stands itiside oi the
quotation-marks in the sentence as he gives it, as if I had
ascribed it to him, but outside in the sentence as printed in
the Journal, Again, in quoting his own sentence from the
Commentary on Romans, he omits the comma before "whom
they have rejected," thus making the relative clause an in-
separable part of the sentence, and aggravating my supposed
offence in omitting it.
In commenting on Dr. Gifford's assertion that " Paul's
anguish was deepened most of all by the thought that their
race gave birth to the Divine Saviour, whom they have re-
jected," I had exclaimed, "Paul's grief for his unbelieving
countrymen, then, had extinguished his gratitude for the
inestimable blessings which he personally owed to Christ;
it had extinguished his gratitude for the fact that the God
who rules over all had sent his Son to be the Saviour of the
world ! " {Journaly p. 92 [p. 338 above].)
Dr. Gifford remarks, " Another note of admiration at
Paul's ingratitude, a pure invention of Professor Abbot"
{Letter, p. 28).
My critic appears to misunderstand me. I shall be very
sorry if, through my unskilful use of irony of which Dr.
Gifford speaks, any other reader has failed to perceive that
my note of admiration is an expression of wonder that in his
reference to the Jewish birth of the Messiah as deepening
Paul's grief at the unbelief of his countrymen, and in his
whole argument against a doxology, Dr. Gifford ignores the
fact that THE ADVENT OF Christ, ncccssarily suggested by
the words ^^fu ^k ^-j^' o x(>'(rror 7o Kara adpKn, was to the Apostle a
cause of joy and gratitude immensely outweighing all tem-
porary occasions of grief, and might well prompt an outburst
of thanksgiving and praise to God. That the very language
he uses did not suggest this is a marvel. He does not meet
at all the point of my objection to his view.
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 417
It will be observed that I do not, with many commenta-
tors, regard the doxology here as simply or mainly an ex-
pression of gratitude for the distinctive privileges bestowed
upon the Jews as a nation, and still less for the particular
fact that, as Dr. Gifford expresses it (p. 30, and note in his
Commentary), "Christ was born a Jew." That gratitude,
not sorrow, was the predominant sentiment in the mind of
the Apostle in view of these privileges I do not doubt ; but
these particular occasions for thankfulness were lost, I con-
ceive, in the thought of the actual advent of Christ, incom-
parably the greatest and most joyful event in the history of
the world, and the most glorious expression of God's love
and mercy to man, for which eternal gratitude was due. It
was this which prompted the song of the angels, " Glory to
God in the highest," and which prompted here the doxology
which so fitly closes the Apostle's grand historic survey of
those privileges of his people, which were the providential
preparation for it.
Let us now consider more particularly Dr. Gifford's argu-
ments and criticisms.
JEWISH PRIVILEGES, AND CONNECTION OF THOUGHTS
IN ROM. IX. 1-5.
Dr. Gifford assumes that the Apostle, in his enumeration
of the privileges which God had bestowed on his nation,
names them only as reasons for the deepening of his grief
for the fall of his countrymen ; and thus finds in vv. 1-5 of
the chapter one unbroken strain of lamentation, leaving no
room for a doxology.
It appears to me that this is a very narrow view of what
was probably in the Apostle's mind, and that there are
other aspects of these privileges, which the way in which
they are mentioned would more naturally suggest to the
reader, and under which it is far more probable that the
Apostle viewed them here. As I have elsewhere observed,
the manner in which he recites them is not that of one
touching upon a subject on which it is painful to dwell. To
say nothing here of the oinvef, observe the effect of the repe-
4l8 CRITICAL ESSAYS
tition of the ^v and the «cu. Let us consider some of these
other aspects.
(i) The privileges of the Jews which the Apostle recounts
were the glory of their nation, distinguishing it above all the
other nations of the earth. This detailed enumeration of
them, so evidently appreciative, was adapted to gratify and
conciliate his Jewish readers, and to assure them of the
sincerity of his affection for his countrymen. It was also
adapted to take down the conceit of his Gentile readers, who
were prone to despise the Hebrew race.
(2) These privileges had been the source of inestimable
blessings to the Israelites in the course of their long history.
(See Rom. iii. i, 2.) Through them the worship of one
God, who rewarded righteousness and punished iniquity,
was preserved in their nation.
(3) They were parts of a great providential plan which
was to find and had found its consummation in the advent
of the Messiah, "the unspeakable gift" of God's love and
mercy.
(4) They were tokens of the Divine favor to the Jews
as a nation, and especially to their pious ancestors, which
gave assurance to Paul that God would not cast off his
people, whom he had chosen ; that they were still " beloved
for the fathers' sake " ; that the present unhappy state of
thin^^s was only temporary, and that, finally, all Israel
should be saved.
The first three aspects of these privileges are obvious;
and would naturally suggest themselves to every reader of
the Epistle ; the fourth we have strong reasons for believing
to have been also in the mind of the Apostle. (See the
eleventh chapter.)
Here I must express my surprise at the manner in which
Dr. Gifford has treated my quotations from the eleventh
chapter in reference to this last-mentioned aspect of the
Jewish privileges. {Letter, p. 26 f.) He omits entirely my
statement of the purpose for which I introduce them {Jour-
7ial, p. 92 [p. 338 above]), though this is absolutely essential
to the understanding of what is meant by "this view" in the
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 419
first sentence which he quotes from me J and then, wholly
without ground, represents me as teaching two things: (i)
•'that as we read the simple enumeration of Jewish privi-
leges in w. 3, 4 [he means w. 4, 5], we are not to connect
it, as is most natural, with the preceding context." How
can he say this, when in the whole treatment of the subject
(Journal, pp. ^^ f. [p. 333 f.], 91 [337], 2d paragr., 104, 105
[P- 353 f-])» I ^^^^ taken particular pains to point out the
connection of thought, and to show that my view of vv. 4, 5,
agrees with the context.? (2) That, "in order to understand
the Apostle's meaning at this point, we must anticipate by
an effort of our own imagination all the long-sustained argu-
ment . . . and the far-reaching prophetic hopes which make
up the three following chapters." If Dr. Gifford had not
omitted the sentences in which I stated my purpose, it would
be at once seen that I did not make these quotations to
show what the reader of vv. 4, 5, is expected to draw from
them by an effort of his own imagination, but what the
Apostle^ together with other things more obvious to the
reader, may be reasonably supposed to have had in mind
when he wrote. When a person treats at length of a subject
on which he must have meditated often and long, meeting
objections which he must have been frequently called upon
to answer, I have been accustomed to suppose that what he
actually says may afford some indication of what was in his
mind when he began to write.
I admit that the privileges which the Jews enjoyed as a
nation may be regarded as having incidentally aggravated
the sin and the shame of their rejection of the Messiah ;
that the contemplation of them under that aspect would
have deepened in some measure the Apostle's grief; and
that it is possible, though I see nothing which directly
proves it, that he viewed them under this aspect here. Dr.
Gifford's error, I conceive, lies in ignoring the other obvious
aspects, under which they could be only regarded as occa-
sions of thankfulness ; and in not recognizing the well-
known psychological fact that the same object of thought
often excites in the mind at the same time, or in the most
420 CRITICiU. ESSAYS
rapid succession, mingled emotions of grief and joy and
gratitude. One knows little of the deeper experiences of
life who has not felt this. That this should be true here
in the case of the Apostle who describes himself as "sor-
rowful, yet always rejoicing," who exhorts his Christian
brethren to "rejoice evt!rmore," and to "give thanks always
for all things to God, the Father, in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ," cannot be regarded as strange or unnatural.
There is no incongruity between sorrow for the misuse
of a great privilege, whether by ourselves or by others, and
devout thankfulness to God for its bestowal. In a pious
mind, these feelings would naturally co-e.xist. Take, for e.t-
ample, the privilege of having been born and educated in
a Christian land, so sadly abused by the majority of those
who enjoy it.
I may note here another fallacy which appears to me to
lurk in the language Dr. GifEord uses respecting the Jewish
privileges. He repeatedly speaks of them as "lost" (pp.
$0, 34, 35), inferring that the remembrance of them can
only deepen the Apostle's grief. But these privileges were
distinctions and glories of the Jewish people which from
their very nature could not be lost. They, and the bless-
ings of which they had been the source, were facts of his-
tory. Even in the case of the unbelieving Jews, though
abused, or not taken advantage of, they were not, properly
speaking, "lost." The privileges themselves remained un-
changed, a permanent subject of thankfulness to God. In
Dr. Gifford's assumption that verses 4 and 5 are only a wail
of lamentation, he ignores these obvious considerations.
I will here state briefly my view of the connection
thought between w. 4, 5, of the ninth chapter, and wl
precedes.
In vv. 1-5 the purpose of the Apostle was to conciluti
his Jewish-Christian readers, and inJirectly the unbelieving
Jews,* by assuring them of his strong affection for his peo-
In
m
•Though Ihe EpUllt lo ihe Ron
Mn.w«Boiaddr«
IC 0(^=1
It <ru 10 mcel, >u>d » enable i1> nad
en lo ai«i, objeciid
Urn, uried
Jemih ChrUliiu
urgHl >g>inn P4iiJ'i Yiew ■
dI il. The
»mngih of ihe pfcjudici igainil hir
;h tht Aponle ai ll» Gtol
i:»hui»
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 42 1
pie, and his appreciation of their 'privileges.* His affection
is shown (i) by his deep sorrow for the unhappy condition
of the great mass of his countrymen' in their rejection of
the Messiah (ver. 2) ; and (2) by his readiness to make any
sacrifice, even that of his own salvation, were such a thing
possible, if thereby he .might bring them to Christ. His
appreciation of their privileges is indicated by the detailed
manner in which they are enumerated, and is distinctly ex-
pressed by the oinvi^ elatv 'lapaffTieirac and what follows. The
oinveg shows that it IS not merely because he belongs to the
same nation with the Jews that he is ready to make such
a sacrifice for them ; but because their nation is suc/i a
nation, distinguished above all the other nations of the
earth ; a nation dedicated to God, whose whole history had
been glorified by extraordinary marks of the Divine favor,
a nation to which he is proud and thankful to belong. The
dirive^ introduccs the distinguisJimg characteristic of his <ii/>7fi'f/f
Kara eapKa. They are not merely fellow-countrymen, they are
Israelites ; and as Philippi remarks, " In dem Namen Israelit
lag die ganze Wiirde des Volkes beschlossen." So far as
the word oinvsc indicates a causa/ relation, it strengthens the
reason for the affirmation which ifnmcdiately precedes (not
directly that in ver. 2, to which Dr. Gifford refers it) ; it
serves, as Tholuck remarks, " zur Begriindung eines solchen
Grades aufopfernder Liebe." Dr. Gifford's assumption that
the memory of these privileges only deepened the Apostle's
grief is not proved by the oirr^tf, and really rests on no
evidence.
So much for the connection of vv. 4, 5, with what pre-
cedes. How naturally the doxology at the end was sug-
gested, and the reason for the position of ft/o>7-<Jf, are
• So Theophylact, on w. 1,2: MA/^/ TTpoiiJV ^el^at, on ov ttolvte^ 01 e^ *A/3paa/i
airipfia ai/rov e'tat. Kai 'iva fir/ fid^i^ Kaf tfnraOeiav ravra /Jyeiv, TrpoXafi^dvet, xal
J\iyEi irepl ribv 'Elipaiuv tcl ;^p7ffrdrf/)a, ryv virovoiav ravTijv avatpCw, Kal o/ioAoyel
avTov^ virep^aXXdvTCjg (pOMv. And on w. 4, 5 : 'Erratvei rovTov^ kvravda naX firyd/.v-
v«, iva, birep i<f>^v, fiij d6^y Kar' eftTrddeiav Tieyeiv. * II pf tin de Kal eTrcuv'tTTerai, bri 6
fikv dedc r/f3ov?^ro avrovc auHf/vat, k.tX So also, in the main, Theodoret, Calrin, Locke,
and especially Flacius Uiyncas, whose notes on vv. i, 3, and 4 are very much to the point. Dr.
Hodge has stated his view of the Aoostle's purpose in almon the same language as I have used
above. (See/ffuma/, p. 91, note [p. 337 above]; see also Dr. Dwi^rhi, il^.d., p. 41.)
422 CRITICAL ESSAYS
pointed out on pp. 88 f., 90 ff., and 104 f. of th^ Journal [pp.
334. 336 ff., 353 t ^bove], and I need not repeat what is
there said.
c m
o tav.
In Dr. Gifford's remarks on 6 ^v (p. 46), he speaks of ray
"gratuitous assumption that ouv, in this passage, 'admits of
being regarded as the subject of an independent sentence,' "
and affirms that this " is simply . . . begging the whole ques-
tion in dispute.'* It is so if "admits of being regarded" is
synonymous with ** must be regarded " ; not otherwise. That .
o wi\ grammatically considered (and it is of this point that I
was speaking), may either refer to the preceding ^ xp«rr6c, or
introduce an independent sentence, is simply a thing plain
on the face of the passage. If Dr. Gifford denies this, he
not only contradicts the authorities he cites, who only con-
tend that it is 7nore naturally connected with what goes
before, but virtually charges such scholars as Winer,
Fritzsche, Meyer, Ewald, Van Hengel, Professor Campbell,
Professor Kennedy, Professor Jowett, Dr. Hort, Lachmann,
and Kuenen and Cobet, with ignorance or violation of the
laws of the Greek language in the construction which they
have actually given the passage.
In reply to Dr. Dwight, who admits that the construction
of this passage is ambiguous, but makes a statement about
** cases similar to that which is here presented," I remark
that no similar case of ambiguity from the use of the
participle with the article has ever, to my knowledge, been
pointed out, so that we have no means of comparing this
passage with a similar one. Dr. Gifford seems to argue
from this (p. 46) that there is no ambiguity here. But I
fail to perceive any coherence in his reasoning. He '* con-
cludes" that St. Paul "could not possibly have intended his
words to bear" an ambiguous construction **in a passage of
the highest doctrinal importance." Certainly. No writer,
whose object is to express and not to conceal his thoughts,
intejitiojially uses ambiguous language. But how does this
prove that the language here is not actually ambiguous ?
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 423
The fact that it is so is plain ; and it is also obvious that,
had the Apostle intended to express the meaning conveyed
by Dr. Gifford's construction, all ambiguity would have been
prevented by using k '^otiv instead of <5 ^v.
If Dr. Gifford's proposition, "The reference of 661; not
ambiguous " (p. 45), denies a grammatical ambiguity here,
it denies, as I have said, what is plain on the face of the
passage, and what is generally, if not universally, admitted
by competent scholars ; if, on the other hand, conceding the
grammatical possibility of two different constructions of
* ^v here, he affirms that there is no real ambiguity, because
he deems the one he adopts the only one tenable, he simply
begs the whole question.
It is true, as Dr. Gifford observes, that in the cases in
the New Testament in which o <jv introduces an independent
sentence no other construction is grammatically possible.
But it is equally true, on the other hand, that in the cases
in which ouv refers to a preceding subject no other construc-
tion is grammatically possible. It follows that the examples
of the use of 6 wv in the New Testament do not help us to
decide which of the two possible constructions is the more
probable here. There are no ** cases similar to that which
is here presented." Dr. Gifford's claim that 2 Cor. xi. 31 is
similar will be examined presently.
On what ground, then, is it affirmed that the construction
which refers o wv to 0 xp^^^'^^ is " easier '* here than that which
makes it the subject of an independent sentence } There is
not the slightest grammatical difficulty in either. Nor is
there the slightest difficulty in the latter construction, on
account of the fact that the verb is not expressed. In the
case of a doxology, which the "A^fxijv naturally suggests, the
ellipsis of koTi or eirj, when €v?x)y7fT6c is employed, is the con-
stant usage; nor is there any grammatical difficulty in the
construction adopted by Professor Kennedy.
It has indeed been asserted by many, as by Dr. Gifford
for example, that the construction of the o uv for which he
contends here is the "usual" one, and, therefore, more easy
and natural. But the examples which I have cited of the
424 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Other construction disprove this assertion, and also show
that, in general, the construction of the participle with the
article in the nominative case, as the subject of an inde-
pendent sentence, is much more common in the New Testa-
ment than that which refers it to a substantive preceding.
{Sqq Journal, p. 97 [above, p. 344].)
In one respect, and one only, so far as I can see, the con-
struction which refers 6 u^ to <J xp^f^'O': may be regarded as the
more natural. It is the one which naturally presents itself
first to the mind. But it has this advantage only for a
moment. As the reader proceeds, he perceives at once
that owv may introduce an independent sentence, and the
•A////V suggests a doxology. Ever^ more may be said : the
separation of ^ wv from « xp^^k by to KaTa aapxa, and the nec-
essary pause after adpKa, might at once suggest that 6 uv (not
"who is," but "he who is*') may introduce a new sentence.
But waiving this possibility, as soon as it is perceived that
the passage admits grammatically of two constructions, the
question which is the more natural does not depend at all
on the fact that the one presented itself to the mind a
moment before the other, but must be determined by weigh-
ing; all the considerations which bear on the subject. One
of these considerations, second to no other in importance,
is Paul's use of language. In the eight preceding chapters
of the Epistle the Apostle has used the word '^ <> as a proper
name, designating the "one God, the Father," about eighty
seven times, and has nowhere applied it to Christ. Could
anything then be more natural than for the primitive reader
of the Epistle to adopt the construction which accords with
this uniform usage of the writer ?
On p. 48 Dr. Gifford claims that 2 Cor. xi. 31 is "exactly
similar in form" to Rom. ix. 5, and therefore proves ''that
the clause '- '■>' '-' -nvr^io ^. r. /. must, according to Paul's usage,
bti referred to the preceding subject o r/uaror"; and he again
speaks of the "exact correspondence between the two pas-
sages." He overlooks two fundamental differences: (i) that
in 2 Cor. xi. 31 the construction which refers the f> <!>»' to -w^.^oc
/v -. > is the only one possible ; and (2) that what precedes
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 425
the o uv does not, as he incorrectly affirms, form a sentence
** grammatically complete," as in Rom. ix. 5; but, on the
contrary, an essential part of the sentence, the object of the
transitive verb oIAfp (namely, on ob ■^evdofiai)^ is separated from
the verb which governs it by the clause introduced by b Ctv.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN Oedg AND Kvpiog.
In regard to the distinction between ^for and Kvpio^, which
Dr. Gifford charges me with having ** asserted in a most
inaccurate form " {Letter, p. 12), I cannot perceive that he
has pointed out any inaccuracy in my statement. That the
word ^ioc in general expresses a higher dignity than k<V<>c
seems to me beyond question. The use of Kipio^ in the Sep-
tuagint as a proper name, taking the place of Jehovah on
account of a Jewish superstition respecting the pronuncia-
tion of the tetragrammatojtf is something wholly exceptional
and peculiar. I have not, however, as Dr. Gifford incor-
rectly represents, "suppressed all reference" to this very
frequent use in the Septuagint and occasional use in the
New Testament. I note the fact that "it is seldom used
of God in the writings of Paul except in quotations from or
references to the language of the Old Testament," and then
remark upon its twofold use as applied to God in the Septu-
agint. (See /o/ir//a/, p. 127 f. [above, p. 380].) That as a
title of Christ it does not stand for Jehovah is fully shown,
I think, by Cremer in his Biblisch-theoL Worterbuch der Neu-
test, Grdcitdty 3te Aufl., p. 483 ff. [4te Aufl., p. 520], or Eng.
trans., 2d ed., p. 382 ff. The argument that as a designa-
tion of Christ in the writings of St. Paul it is equivalent to
Jehovah, because in a very few places he applies to Christ
language of the Old Testament in which /c»>of represents
Jehovah, loses all its apparent*force when we observe the
extraordinary freedom with which he adapts the language
of the Old Testament to his purpose without regard to its
meaning in the connection in which it stands. On this it
may be enough to refer to Weiss, Bihi. TJicol. of the N. Zl,
3d ed., § 74. He remarks : ** Paul does not inquire into the
original meaning of Old Testament expressions ; he takes
/
426 CRITICAL ESSAYS
them in the sense which he is accustomed to give to similar
expressions, even in the case of such terms as ttUttic, Kvpiog,
fi(i}yeXi:eaffai (Rom. i. I/, ix. 33, X. I3, 1 5)."
In the passage of the Old Testament (Ps. ex. i) which
Christ himself has quoted (Matt. xxii. 43-45 ; Mark xii. 35-
37 ; Luke xx. 41-44) as illustrating the meaning of k-'V>c as
a designation of the Messiah, the Messiah (if the Psalm
refers to him) is clearly distinguished from Jehovah, at
whose right hand he sits, as he is everywhere else in the
Old Testament.* This very passage is also quoted by the
Apostle Peter as proving that "God hath made Jesus both
Lord and Christ." When these and other facts are adduced
to show that the term ** Lord " as applied to Christ in the
New Testament does not stand for Jehovah, but describes
the dignity and dominion conferred upon him by God, Dr.
Gifford simply remarks that "this reasoning has been em-
ployed again and again in the Arian and Unitarian contro-
versies, and again and again refuted." I wonder how many
of his readers would regard this as a satisfactory answer to
my quotations (if he had giveii them) from the Apostles
Peter and Paul, or are ready to assume, with St. Jerome,
that Domijuitio involves Dcitas. The "refutations'* to
which Dr. Gifford refers, "again and again" repeated, do
not appear to have been convincing to those to whom they
were addressed.
Dr. Gifford refers to Waterland, Pearson, and Weiss.
Weiss has already been sufficiently answered by Weiss ;
sec above. Waterland and Pearson cite such passages as
Hpsea i. 7, " I will save them by Jehovah their God, and
will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, nor
by horses, nor by horsemen," as proving that Jesus Christ
is called Jehovah in the Old Testament. (Pearson, Expos,
of the Creed, p. 217 f., Nichols's ed.) Pearson cites to the
same purpose Zech. x. 12; Jer. xxiii. 5, 6 (comp. Jer. xxxiii.
15, 16) ; Zech. ii. 10, and other passages. Such exegesis
might perhaps be pardoned in the time of Pearson and
Waterland, though commentators like Calvin, Pocock, Dru-
* See, for example, Micah v. 4 : " And he shall stand and feed in the strength of Jehovah,
in the majesty of the name of Jehovah, his God."
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 427
sius, Grotius, and LeClerc had rejected this wild interpre-
tation ; but it can hardly be supposed that it needs a formal
refutation at the present day. It may be enough to refer
Dr. Gifford to ** The Speaker's Commentary " on the pas-
sages mentioned, and the note in th^ Journal lor 1881, p. 124
[above, p. 376].
ORIGEN.
Dr. Gifford still appeals to Rufinus*s translation of Ori-
gan's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as proving
that Origen "certainly" interpreted the last part of Rom.
ix. 5 as he does {Letter, pp. 32 ff., 65). His positiveness is
not abated by the circumstance that Rufinus so altered,
abridged, and interpolated this work of Origen, that for the
most part we have no means of determining what belongs
to Origen and what to Rufinus, and that his friends thought
he ought to claim it as his own.*
Dr. Gifford gives* his readers no hint of this important
fact, of which he could not have been ignorant, and for
which I had cited Matthaei, Redepenning, and Rufinus
himself {Journal, p. 135). There is perhaps no higher
authority in Patrology than Cave, who, in his list of Ori-
gan's writings, thus describes the work on which Dr. Gifford
ralias with so much confidence : " /;/ Epistolavi ad Roinanos
Commentariorum tomi 20. quos pessima fide a se versos
MiSERE interpolatos, detruncatos ct ad mediam fere
partem contractos edidit Rufinus, versione sua in 10. tomos
distributa." — Hist, Lit, s.v, Origenes, i., 118 ed. Oxon.
1740. Thomasius, in his valuable work on Origen, was more
prudent in his use of authorities. He says: "Am wenigsten
aber wagte ich den Commentar zu den Romern zu beniitzen,
der nach der Pcroratio Riifini in explanatiouem Origenis
super Epist, Pauli ad Rom, Vol. iv. eine ganzliche Umge-
staltung durch den Uebersctzer erfahrcn zu haben scheint."
{Origenes (1837), P- 9^) Even Burton, who, in his very
*"Adrersus hanc aadaciam excandesdt Erasmus, nee immerito qoidam Rufinum objur-
garunt, quemadmodum ipse sibi obj-x:tum fuisse ait in peroratione suae translationis, quod suum
potios, quam Origenis nomen hujus operis titulo non inscripsisset. Hinc etiam fit, ut vix
OrigeDcm in Origene reperias," etc Lumper, Hist. tk*ol.<rii., etc, Pars ix. (179a), p. i<)i.
428 CRITICAL ESSAYS
one-sided Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers^ etc.,
quotes largely from spurious works ascribed to Hippolytus
and Dionysius of Alexandria without giving any warning to
the reader, could not bring himself to cite Rufinus's trans-
formation of Origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans. (See Testimonies^ etc., 2d ed., p. 339.)
Dr. Gifford*s citations from the treatise of Origen against
Celsus do not appear to me to answer his purpose. He
quotes passages (Cont, Cels, i. 60, 66 ; ii. 9) in which Origen
has called Christ ^m but in the last one adduced (ii. 9)
the words at the end of the sentence, Kara rov -Ctv b^uv debv kqI
naripa, as Dc la Ruc remarks, '* manifestam continent antith-
esin ad ista, fi^ya^v bvra 6'vvafuv Koi ftedv, ut pater supra filium eve-
Jiatnry * What is wanted is to show that Origen has not
merely given Christ the appellation Be6^, *'a divine being.*'
in contradistinction from © ^e<ic, ^ rCtv u/mv ee6^, 6 cttI rraai deo^, by
which titles he constantly designates the Father, but that
he has called him ** God over all," as he is represented as
making St. Paul do in this so-called translation of Rufinus.
It is the Father alone who in the passages cited by Dr.
Gifford (Conf. Cels. viii. 4, 12) is termed 6 km Tram Seu^-, in viii.
14 of the same treatise Origen emphatically denies that the
generality of Christians regarded the Saviour as ** the God
over all " ; and in the next section he expressly calls him
^De la Rue understands the Karn to denote " inferiorom ordinem," and says it is often so
used. I doubt this, and, if the word is genuine, should rather lake it as meaning " in accordance
with the will of," or " by the will of," nearly as in the phrase Kara thov in Plato, Aristotle, and
other Gfctik authors. But it seems to me very probable that the true reading '\% uird ; comp.
Orig. Injo.innem, tom. i. c. n, 70V // f rtt Tov Trartpa r(bi> u/m)i> (icbv AOyuv ; Justin Mart.
Apol \. 32, 1) ~f)(',t7r/ M'van/r fi f r a rui> rcaT^pa iravriov Kal i^eaTOTf/v deuv (and similarly
A^o/. I. 12, 13; ii. 13); Eiiseb. B^ Eccl. Tkeol. \. 20, p. 93 c , /c/'/ror ruiv b?.iov urra r.;,-
fzi rrarruji' Ihor. The prepositions Kara and firra are very often conf'»unded in MSS. by an
error of the scribe, the ab'oreviatioii^ for the two words being similar. (Montfaucon, Palatognr.
Graeca, p. 345; Sabi*. S/>ec/>n. Palcuogr.^ Suppl., tabb. xi. , xii.) See Bast ad Gregor.
Coriiuh. ed. Schaefer (iSi 1 ), pp <>*), 405, 825, and Irmisch's Herodian iv. 1638, who gives eight
examples. Cobel remarks: " Q.ii codices Graecos triverunt sciunt «a7« et lyrra corapendiosc
sic scribi ut vix oculis discerni poi>itu. Passim confuodi solere sciunt omnes." — Varia* LtC'
iionfs^ in Mnemosyne vii. 391.
Dr. G.fford may prefer Burton's view, who says {TtititnoKUS, etc., 2d ed., p. 293) it "can
only mean ' God after the pattern of the God of the universe.' " It would taJce too much space
10 give my reasons for differing from him. Martini says (p. 175), " Entweder ist es s. v. a. /rr
deuw [there is some mistake here, perhaps only a comma omitted] cuius auctor tst summus deus^
oder secundum voiuntatem snvttni deiV Mosheim renders it uiichst ; Riissler, nack ; Crom-»ie
and Professor Kennedy, wrx/ to. These trinslatioiis rather represent //-*/, but thow what the
translators thought the context to require, and may thus be regarded as confirming my conjecture.
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 429
" inferior " to the Father (vTroSeiarepoc), as he elsewhere speaks
of him as eXdrranf npo^ rov naripa and devrepoc rov rrarpdc {^De Priucip,
i- 3> § 5)» ^^^ says that " he is excelled by the Father as much
as (or even more than) he and the Holy Spirit excel other
beings," and that " in no respect does he compare with the
Father " (<'« cvyKpiverai Kaf Mev ri^i izarpi^ In Joau, tom. xiii. C. 25,
Opp. iv. 235). It is not easy to believe that one who uses
such language as this applied the last clause of Rom. ix. 5
to Christ.
In the passage Cont, Cels, viii. 4, I perceive no ground for
regarding the titles rhv ml Trdai Behv ruv Oeijv, and Tovem TToai KVpiovTov
Kvpiutv, as denoting equal dignity. The latter, high as it is,
as applied to Christ, is far from proving that he might be
called cTTA irdvTuv dedg. The last sentence quoted by Dr. Gifford
shows the distinction. The purport of it is that "he has
risen to the God over all who worships Him undividedly"
(this is said in opposition to the worship of the heathen, dis-
tributed among many gods), " through him who alone leads
men to God, namely, the Son, the God-Logos and Wisdom,"
etc. The relation of the Son to the Father, from whom he
has derived all that makes him an object of worship, and
whose image he is, is such, according to Origen, that the
relative worship paid to him is all ultimately paid to the
God over all, the Father, who alone is the Supreme Object
of worship.
Still less, if possible, is the quotation from Cont, Cels, viii.
12 to Dr. Gifford*s purpose. It teaches, he says, ''that
Christ is to be worshipped as being One with the Supreme
God." " One " in what sense } Dr. Gifford omits the
words that immediately follow, in which Origen cites Acts
iv. 32, " And the multitude of believers were of one heart
and one soul," as explaining the meaning of the words, " I
and the Father are one." * A little further on Origen says :
"We worship, then, the Father of the Truth, and the Son,
who is the Truth ; f two distinct persons, but one in agree-
* So in his Comm. in Joan. tom. xiiL c. 34, Opp. ir 345, Origen explains John x. 30 as
relating to the unity of will between the Father and the Son.
t Comp. Origen, In Joan. tom. ii. c 18, Opp. vf. 76b: 5 Trarr/p rfi^ iO.rfitia^ Bih^ Tr?^icw
koTi Kai fui^uv Ti [we should read, perhaps, rj fj] a/.ifina : " the God who is the Father of the
Trvth is more and greater than the Truth."
430 CRITICAL ESSAYS
ment of thought, and in harmony of feeling, and in same-
ness of will,*' ftvra Sin ry viroffrdaet Trpdyuara, ev Se rij dfiovoia, kqI ry oviKpuvig,
Kai TTf ravT&rrjTL rov ^ov^juaTog ^ SO that he who has Seen the Son
. . . has seen in him, who is the image of God, God him-
self."*
In the view of Origen, the moral union between the
Father and the Son was perfect, so that the worship of the
Son, regarded as the image of the Father, reflecting his
moral perfections, his goodness and righteousness and truth,
is virtually the worship of the Father himself; it terminates
in him as its ultimate object. (See Cont, Cels, viii. 13, ad fin)
Origan's ideas respecting the worship of the Son appear
distinctly in what he says of prayer. In his treatise on
Prayer, he teaches that prayer, properly speaking, is "per-
haps never to be offered to any originated being, not even to
Christ himself y but only to the God and Father of all, to
whom our Saviour himself prayed and teaches us to pray."
{^De Orat, c. 15 ; Opp. i. 222.) There is much more to the
same purpose. In his later work against Celsus, he says
that "every supplication and prayer, and intercession, and
thanksgiving is to be sent up to the God' over all, throjigk
the High Priest, who is above all angels, the living Logos,
and God. But we shall also supplicate the Logos himself,
and make requests to him, and give thanks and pray, if we
are able to distinguish between prayer properly speaking
and prayer in a looser sense, i^'iy (^rv<'jutOa KnraKovuv tt}^ ^(pi r/KXTf-rj^j^f
Kvinn/f::-uic Mil K(!ra;[in^an.>r'' (^Cout. Ceis. V. 4, and SCC alsO V. 5,
Opp. i. 580.) Compare Cofif. Ccls. viii. 26: " We ought to
pray only to the God over all ; yet it is proper to pray
also to the only-begotten, the first-born of the whole creation,
the Logos of God, and to request him, as a High Priest, to
carry up our prayers which reach him to his God and our
God." So Cout, Ccls. viii. 13 : "We worship the one God,
• Ii may be well to notice here an ambiguous sentence in this section, which has been trans-
lated, incorrectly, I think, " We worship one God, therefore, the Father and the Son, as we
have explained." The Greek is, /jv; nvv {ho\\ <.V ar:()i\i:i^uKaiifv^ rov -arifm [.] Kat rov
v'lov (^ffuirrrvoiiFv. We should, I believe, place a comma after Trarepa^ and translate, '* We
worship, therefore, one God, the Father, and the Son." This is confirmed by what follows, dted
above, and by the language used in the next section (c. 13): did Tov kva btbv^ Kol Tov eva
liov a'vrov Kai '/.6}vv Kcii uKoi'a . . . ai,3out:v.
RECtNT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 43 1
and the one Son, who is his Logos and Image, with suppli-
cations and petitions as we are able, bringing our prayers to
the God of the universe through his only-begotten Son,
to whom we first offer them ; beseeching him, who is the
propitiation for our sins, to present, as High Priest, our
prayers and sacrifices and intercessions to the God over
ALL." •
I do not see how any one can read these passages and
regard it as probable, much less as certain^ that Origen un^
derstood Paul in Rom. ix. 5 to describe Christ as o bv k-\
rrdvTuv de6c, ev?joyTrrdc ek Toig a'ltjvac. It is clcar, at any rate, that he
did not understand the passage as Dr. Gifford does (Letter,
p. 3), as **a testimony to the co-equal Godhead of the Son."
Dr. Gifford's argument from the Selecta in Threjios, iv. 5,
rests on a false assumption, which has been already suffi-
ciently remarked upon.
PUNCTUATION IN MANUSCRIPTS.
On p. 36 of Dr. Gifford's Letter, speaking of punctuation
in MSS., he observes that "it is universally acknowledged
that no marks of punctuation or division were in use till
long after the days of St. Paul." This remark, if intended
to apply to Greek MSS. in general, is inaccurate, and indi-
cates that Dr. Gifford has been misled by untrustworthy
authorities. If it is intended to apply to New Testament
MSS., I do not see how the fact can be proved, as we pos-
sess no MSS. of the New Testament of earlier date than
the fourth century. But the essential point in Dr. Gifford*s
remarks is, that the punctuation in MSS. of the New Testa-
ment is of no authority. This is very true ; and it should
have been remembered by the many commentators (includ-
ing Dr. Gifford) who have made the assertion (very incorrect
in point of fact), that a stop after fffl/M« is found in only two
or three inferior MSS. in Rom. ix. 5, as if that were an argu-
ment against a doxology here.
* It may be worth while to note that Orif^en {jCont. Ctb. viii. 9) justifies the honor paid to the
Sod 00 the ground that he receives it by the appointment of the Father (arrm^n^nfttv on airb
Beav didorai ainif) to Tiuuctku, ciiinjt John v. aj)^ and is declared by God to be a^iuv r r/f
devrepevoia^g fiera ruv Oeuv tcjv o/mv . . . Tifif/(. {Cent. Ctl*. v. 57.)
432 CRITICAL ESSAYS
The results of some recent investigation in regard to this
matter are given in owx Journal for 1882, p. 161 [p. 4o6f.
above]. The investigation has since, through the kindness
of Dr. C. R. Gregory, been carried somewhat farther. I can
now name, besides the uncials A, B, C, L. the first three of
which are not "inferior MSS.," at least twenty-six cursives
which have a stop after oapm, the same in general which they
have after a\iivaq or 'A/zr/v. In all probability, the result of an
examination would show that three-quarters or four-fifths of
the cursive MSS. containing Rom. ix. 5 have a stop after
In regard to Codex A, Canon Cook thinks the testimony
of Dr. Vance Smith, whom Dr. Gifford cites as saying that
the stop after oa^Ka is " evidently a prima tnanu^^ is " not
verified or likely to be verified." * Many others will ques-
tion the testimony of a Unitarian heretic. It would have
been only fair, therefore, to have added the fact, mentioned
on p. 150 of the Journal [p. 407 above], that Dr. Sanday
agrees with him. I would add that I am informed, on good
authority, that Dr. Scrivener has examined the MS. at this
place with the same result.
The whole matter is in itself unimportant ; but it is
important that writers like Dean Burgon should cease im-
posing upon unlearned readers by making reckless asser-
tions about it.
VAN HENGEL ON THE to Kara adpKa.
As regards the limitation ro Kara aafma {Letter, p. 38 f.), the
examples cited by Van Hen gel from Plato's Philebns (c. 7,
p. 17'') and Isocrates {Ad Nicocl. c. 29 al. 30) in support of
his view, and urged by Dr. Gifford in opposition to it, are,
I think, not to the purpose on either side. The formulae
"A and also B," and ** not only A, but B," into which the
quotations, so far as they bear on the matter, may be re-
solved, do not express "antithesis," but agreement. Dr.
Gifford's citation from Demosthenes {Cont, Enbul. p. 1229, 1.
14) furnishes no analogy to the -<> ««-a aa{)Ka here, and is wholly
•Canon Cook, Reiustd yersion of the First Three Gospels^ p. 194 ; comp. p. 167.
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 433
irrelevant, for two reasons : (i) because the rb Koff vfia^ [al. 4fMc]
is introduced with a f^v, which of course leads one to expect
an antithesis, such as follows, expressed by ie; and (2) be-
cause the Td Koff vfia^ is probably to be regarded as the direct
object of the verb dappeiv, used here, as often, transitively.
like its opposite (^o^eioBcu. Van Hengel's rule relates only to
clauses like ro Kaf ink, rh e^ vfujv, in which the article r6 with its
adjunct is neither the object nor the subject of a verb, or at
least of any verb expressed. (See Van Hengel, Interp, Ep,
Pauli ad Rom, ii. 348.)
IRENiEUS.
As to the quotation of Rom. ix. 5 by Irenaeus {Haer, iii.
16, §3), I must still, for the reasons assigned in the Journal
(p. 390 above), regard it as doubtful whether he referred the
last clause of the verse to Christ. In opposition to the
Gnostics who held that the Mon Christ first descended upon
Jesus at his baptism, Irenaeus is quoting passages which, like
k^ 6v 6 xpiork TO Kara aapKa, speak of the Christ as born. But why.
Dr. Gifford asks, does he quote the remainder of the passage,
if it had nothing to do with his argument } {Letter, p. 42.) I
answer, he may well have included it in his quotation, if he
regarded it as a doxology, or gave it Dr. Kennedy's con-
struction, for the same purpose as Photius has quoted it in
his work against the Manichaeans (sqq Journal, p. 138 f. [p.
393 above] ) ; namely, as confirming the doctrine insisted on
throughout his book, that the God of the Jews, the God of
the Old Testament, was not, as all the Gnostics contended,
a being inferior to the Supreme God, but the God over all.
So understood, it would agree with the language which
Irenaeus uses so often elsewhere, describing the Father as
the God over all, while he nowhere, to my knowledge, speaks
of the Son as God over all. I admit that Irenaeus may have
applied the last clause to Christ, separating the ^m from « wv
kiri ndvTuv as a distinct predicate ; but I perceive nothing
which determines with certainty the construction he gave
it. The whole question is of the least possible consequence-
One who could treat 2 Cor. iv. 4 as he has done {Haer. iii. 7,
434 CRITICAL ESSAYS
§ I ; iv. 29, § 2) is certainly no authority in exegesis in a
case where doctrinal prejudice could have an influence.
Dr. Gifford thinks that Irenaeus " most probably " refers
to Rom. ix. 5 when he says {Haer, iii. 12, § 9) that the mys-
tery which was made known to Paul by revelation was that
b iraHtJV ettl liovriov Uli/.drov ovro^ Kvpto^ tuv t&vtuv Kai ^atXei>^ koj Btb^ koI
KpiHi^ koTLv. He omits the words that immediately follow, pre-
served in the old Latin version : " ab eo qui est omnium
Deus accipiens potestatem, quoniam subiectus factus est
usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis," where Christ as
Bedq is distinguished from him who is ** omnium Deus," from
whom he received his power. This does not go far towards
proving that Irenseus would call Christ " God over all." I
observe incidentally that Irenaeus*s explanation of " the mys-
tery which was made known to Paul by revelation " (Eph.
iii. 3) differs widely from that which Paul himself gives
(Eph. iii. 6 ff.).
CLEMENT OF ROME.
Passing to p. 41 of Dr. Gifford*s Letter, I remark that if
Clement of Rome in the passage cited {Cor, c. 32) had Rom.
ix. 5 in mind, as he probably did, and regarded the last
clause as applicable to Christ, it would have been altogether
to his purpose to have added it to the ro Kara aapKa, his pur-
pose being to magnify the distinctions bestowed by God
on the patriarch Jacob. Dr. Gifford will not, I think, find
many who regard the simple expression **the Lord Jesus"
as equivalent to *' He who is over all, God blessed for ever";
it is rather the equivalent of the Pauline o .xn^^-oCf a title
which, when it denotes the Messiah, involves lordship. So
far, then, from inferring, as Dr. Gifford does, from this pas-
sage of Clement, that he *' probably" {Letter, p. 65) applied
the last clause to Christ, I should infer from his omitting it,
where, thus understood, it would have been so much to his
purpose, that he probably did not. This presumption would
be confirmed by the way in which he speaks of Christ, and
distinguishes him from God, throughout his Epistle.
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 435
THE NEWLY DISCOVERED QUOTATION OF ROMANS IX. 5 BY
IRENiEUS.
Dr. Gi£ford {Letter, p. 41) adduces a passage from Ire-
naeus, "which no one," he observes, "so far as I know, has
hitherto noticed in this connection. Prof. Abbot indeed
says (p. 136) that the only place where Irenaeus has quoted
Rom. ix. 5 is Haer, iii. 16 {al. 18), § 3. Alas! for the man
who ventures on that spirited but dangerous hobby, the uni-
versal negative. These are the words of Irenaeus in Fragm.
Xvii. (Stieren) l k^ dv 6 xpt-*^"^^^ npoervn^Otf Kal iTTeyvuadij kgl kyewtjOtf,
ev fihf ydp r^ 'lcj<n)0 npoervn^Sij' kx 6k tov Aevt Kal tov 'lotxfa rb Kara adpna
«f pofftXebc Kol iepevc eyewT/dTj**
Dr. Gifford has fortunately given the Greek of the passage
that is to put me to shame, and I have not the slightest ap-
prehension that any reader of his Letter will call the frag-
ment of Irenaeus which he cites a quotation of Rom. ix. 5 ;
at the very utmost, it could only be termed an allusion to
that passage. The editor of the 2e/pd or Catena from which
this fragment is taken (Nicephorus Theotoki), and the edi-
tors and translators of Irenaeus, as Grabe, Massuet, Stieren,
Migne, Harvey, Roberts and Rambaut, and Keble, though
they all refer in the margin to supposed quotations, have
failed to make any reference here to Rom. ix. 5. If it be a
quotation, the discovery of the fact belongs probably to Dr.
Gifford alone. It will be observed that Dr. Gifford spaces
the letters in H ^ o xp'<f'k as if they must be regarded as
quoted Ixovci Rom. ix. 5. He does not note the fact that this
fragment of Irenaeus is part of a comment on Deut xxvii.
12, and is given in a fuller form in a Latin translation by
Franciscus Zephyrus or Zephyrius (= Zafiri) in his edition
of a Catena on Deuteronomy, as cited by Grabe in his edi-
tion of Irenaeus (p. 469). This reads: "Notandum, benedi-
cendi munus in tribubus demandatum, ex quibus Christus
designatus cognoscitur et generatur," etc., and shows how
little the H^v^k.t.a. has to do with Rom. ix. 5, and how
groundless is the inference which Dr. Gifford draws from
this accidental coincidence of expression.
43^ CRITICAL ESSAYS
Long before Dr. Gifford's Letter was published I had
noted this fragment, together with a similar passage in Ire-
naeus {Haer, iv. 4, § i), as examples of rdKaraaapKa without an
antithesis expressed, and had caused them to be printed
among the Additions and Corrections in the number of the
Journal for 1882, p. 160, referring to th^ Journal for 1881,
p. loi. So far as they go, they both, I think, favor my view
of the controverted passage rather than Dr. Gi£ford*s. If
they are to be regarded as quotations of Rom. ix. 5, they
favor it more than I had supposed.
POSITION OF evAoyjTTcJf.
In Dr. Gifford's remarks on the position of evAoy7r<if {Letter^
p. 54 f.)> he maintains that in the text of the Septuagint, in
Ps. Ixviii. 20 (Sept. Ixvii. 19), ev7.oynr6^ should be read but
once, and connected with what follows. For this, so far as
I can ascertain, he has the authority of only two unimpor-
tant cursive MSS. (Nos. 183, 202), — in which the omission
of one tvhyyrjToq is readily explained as accidental, on account
of the Jiomocotcleuton or dittography, — in opposition to all the
other known MSS. of the Psalms, more than a hundred in
number, including the uncials, among them j< and B of the
fourth century, and the Verona MS. of the fifth or sixth.
(The Alexandrian MS. and the Zurich Psalter are mutilated
here.) The omission of the first ^ 'V^^; 7-or, moreover, leaves
the kIihoc ,', fhor simply hanging in the air, without any con-
struction. To adopt such a reading in the face of such evi-
dence is to do violence to all rational principles of textual
criticism. The difference between the LXX and the He-
brew is easily explained ^y the supposition that in the
Hebrew copy used by the t*-anslators, the *1T)3 was repeated
(which might easily have happened), or at least that they
thought it ought to be.
Dr. Gifford takes no notice of my explanation of the
reason for the ordinary position of such words as ev?Myirr6c,
Ev?.oyr/ufvoc, i—Lnnraparnc^ etc, iu doxologics, bencdictious, and
maledictions, or of the exceptions which I adduce (save Ps.
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 437
«
Ixviii. 20, which I waive), or of ray argument that, if we take
the last clause as a doxology, the position of evXoyTrr^c after
the subject is not only fully accounted for, but is rather
required by the very same law of the Greek language which
governs all the exaraples that have been alleged against the
doxolog^cal construction, (/otirnaly^p, 103-111.) As this
view is supported by so eminent a grammarian as Winer, to
say nothing of Meyer, Fritzsche, and other scholars, it seems
to me that it deserved consideration.
DIFFERENT SENSES OF evloynrd^.
On p. 56 of Dr. Gifford's Letter^ he gives as exaraples of
the use and meaning of the word th/MyrfTd^ the expressions
" Blessed be God " and " Blessed be thou of the Lord," and
remarks that "Dr. Abbot 'overlooks the fact' that, what-
ever difference there may be, it lies 7iot in the sense of the
word tvAoyjiTo^, but in the different relations of the persons
blessing and blessed.'* I must confess that I have over-
looked the fact, if it be a fact ; and must also confess my
belief that not a few of Dr. Gifford's readers will be sur-
prised at the proposition that there is no difference in the
sense of the word ev/Myrjrd^ when, applied to God, it means
"praised" or "worthy to be praised," and when, applied to
men, it means ** prospered " or " blessed " by God. The fact
on which Dr. Gifford seems to lay great stress, that iv/joyrrrdi
in these different senses represents the same Hebrew word,
will not weigh much with those who consider that many
words in common use have several very different meanings
in Hebrew as well as in other languages. The two mean-
ings are as distinct as those of ev7joyia in the sense of laus,
landatiOf celcbratio (Grimm, Lex, s.v. ei/jyyia, No. i), and of
donum, beneficinm (Grimm, ibid,^ No. S).
The very common use of fvP^j^^c in doxologies to God
seems to have led the Septuagint translators to restrict its
application in the sense of "praised," or rather "worthy to
be praised," to the Supreme Being. To this perhaps the
only exception is in the expression ev/Myrroc o rpoTro^ aw in
43^ CRITICAL ESSAYS
I Sam. XXV. 33. In the New Testament, apart from the pas-
sage in debate, its application is restricted to God, ** the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" My point is that
whatever force there may be in the argument from this ex-
tensive usage in favor of its application to God rather than
to Christ in Rom. ix. 5, it is not diminished in the slightest
degree by the fact that in a few passages of the LXX the
word is applied to men in the very different sense of ** pros*
pered" or "recipients of blessings." i,e, benefits, from God.
I have now, I believe, taken notice of all the points of im-
portance in which Dr. Gifford has criticised my statements,
or statements which he has ascribed to me. I am not with-
out hope that in a future edition of his pamphlet he may see
reason for modifying some of his remarks, and for giving
more fully the context of some of his quotations.
XVIII.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13.
[From rXieJmtmal of tht Society 0/ Biblical Liitraittre and Exe£esis, 1881.]
The Greek reads as follows : 7rpoa6ex6fievoi ri^v fiampiav iXmSa
Kal inu^dveiav Tijq Sd^ij^ rov /isydh)v fieov nal auTijpoq ^/luv 'lijonrb Xpurrov {OK
XpuxTov *lTfaov).
Shall we translate, "the appearing of the glory of our
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ " ? or, " the appearing
of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ " ?
It was formerly contended by Granville Sharp, and after-
wards by Bishop Middleton, that the absence of the Greek
article before at^rfipryq in Tit. ii. 13 and 2 Pet. i. i, and before
Qtw) in Eph. V. S, is alone sufficient to prove that the two
appellatives connected by Kai belong to one subject.* ** It is
impossible," says Middleton in his note on Tit. ii. 13, "to
understand Q^oh and ai^rripoq otherwise than of one person."
This ground is now generally abandoned, and it is admitted
that, grammatically^ either construction is possible. I need
* Sharp applied his famous rule also to a Thess. i. is, but Middleton thinks that this text
affords no certain evidence in his favor. Wioer disposes of it summarily as merely a case in
which Kvpioq is used for ft Kvpiog, the word Kvpio^ taking, in a measure, the character of a
proper name. In a Thess. i. 1 1, o debq r//iGtv denotes God in distinction from " our Lord Jesus "
(ver. I *) ; it is therefore unnatural in the extreme to take this title in the last clause of ike very
same sentence (ver. 12) as a designation of Christ. We may then reject without hesitation Gran<
ville Sharp's coastruction, which in fact has the support of but few respectable scholars.
As to I Tim. V. ai and a Tim. iv. i, it is enough to refer to the notes of Bi»hop Middleton
and Bishop EUicott on the form -r passage. Compare the remarkable various reading in Gal. ii.
ao, adopted by Lachmann and Tregehes (text), but not by Tischendorf or Westcott and Hurt, —
iv TziartL Cw Ty tov deov Kal Xpiaroi,
In Erh. v. 5, ev rfj ^aaiAeig. rov Xpiarov Kat deov, the Xpiarov *nd fieov are regarded
as denoting distinct subjects by a large majority of the best commentators, as De Wette, Meyer,
Olshaosen, Meier, Holzhausen, Flatt, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Ewald, Schenkel,
Braune and Riddle (in Lange's Comm.. Amer. trans.), Conybeare, Bloomfield, EUicott, Eadie,
Alford, Canon Barry in £llicott*s A''. T. Comm., and Prebendary Meyrick m " the Speaker's
Commentary "( 1881).
In the Revised New Testament, the construction contended for so strenuously by Middleton
in Eph. V. 5, and by Sharp in a Thess. i. 12, has not been deemed worthy of notice.
440 CRITICAL ESSAYS
only refer to Winer. Stuart, Buttmann, T. S. Green, and
S. G. Green among the grammarians, and to Alford, EUicott,
Bishop Jackson, and other recent commentators.* It will
be most convenient to assume, provisionally, that this view
is correct ; and to consider first the cxegctical grounds for
preferring (5ne construction to the other. But as some still
think that the omission of the article, though not decisive of
the question, affords a presumption in favor of the construc-
tion which makes rov fityahm Oeoi) a designation of Christ, a few
remarks upon this point will be made in Note A, at the end
of this paper. It may be enough to say here that f^eoif has
already an attributive, so that the mind naturally rests for a
moment upon rdv fieydXw Beov as a subject by itself ; and that
the addition of 'irioov ^Lptarov to aurrvpo^ iuov distinguishes the
person so clearly from rov fiey67jov Oeov, according to Paul's con-
stant use of language^ that there was no need of the article
for that purpose.
The question presented derives additional interest from
the fact tiiat, in the recent Revision of the English transla-
tion of the New Testament, the English Company have
adopted in the text the first of the constructions mentioned
above, placing the other in the margin ; while the American
Company, by a large majority, preferred to reverse these
positions
I will first examine the arguments of Bishop EUicott for
the construction which makes rov ixtyakov^tov an appellation of
Christ. They are as follows : —
'' {a) t7rt(i>avtta is a term specially and peculiarly applied to
the Son, and never to the Father." The facts are these. In
one passage (2 Tim. i. 10) the word k-i^dvaa is applied to
Christ's first advent ; in four to his second advent (2 Thess.
ii. 8 ; I Tim. vi. 14 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1,8); and as i-^^vf/a denotes
a visible manifestation, it may be thought that an t-toduEm of
• See Winer. Gram. § 19, 5, Anm. 1, p. 123, yte Aufl. (p. 130 Thayer's trans., p. 161 Mooi-
ton) ; Stuart, B/^'/. Repos. April, 1834, vol. iv. p. 322 f. ; A. Huttmann, Gra««. §125, 14-17,
pp. 97-'0', Thayer's triiis. ; T S. Green, Gram. 0/ the .V. T. Dialect (1S42), pp. 205-219, or
n-w .>d. I 1^.62), pp. 67-75; S. G. Green, Hamlbyok to the Gr.im. 0/ the Greek Test., p. 216; and
A.f"rcJ o \ Tit ii. i j. Alfo'd h\«5 «irn.; jiood remarks on the ni.;.!T7e. bir I hnd no sulficient proof
« I hu sMtcnjint that (jioTf/ft had become in the N. T. "a qiuiii proper uamc."
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 441
God, the Father, "whom no man hath seen nor can see,"
could not be spoken of.
But this argument is founded on a misstatement of the
question. The expression here is not "the appearing of the
great God*' but " the appearing of the glory of the great
God," which is a very different thing. When our Saviour
himself had said, " The Son of man shall come in the glory
of his Father^ with his angels " (Matt. xvi. 27, comp. Mark
viii. 38), or as Luke expresses it, " in his own glory, and the
glory of the Father, and of the holy angels " (ch. ix. 26), can
we doubt that Paul, who had probably often heard Luke's
report of these words, might speak of "the appearing of the
glory " of the Father, as well as of Christ, at the second
advent } *
This view is confirmed by the representations of the
second advent given elsewhere in the New Testament, and
particularly by i Tim. vi. 14-16. The future cn-^bama of
Christ was not conceived of by Paul as independent of God,
the Father, any more than his first i^L^^dvua or advent, but as
one "which in his own time the blessed and only Potentate,
the King of kings and Lord of lords, who only hath immor-
tality, dwelling in lis^ht unapproachable, whom no man hath
seen nor can see, shall show " ('^f'^f'). The reference is to
the joint manifestation of the glory of God and of Christ at
the time when, to use the language of the writer to the
Hebrews (i. 6), " he again bringeth [or shall hive brought^
the first-begotten into the world, and saith, Let all the
angels of God pay him homage." f That God and Christ
should be associated in the references to the second advent,
* Even if the false assamption on which the argumeot is founded were correct, that is, if the
expression here used were t^/P kiTK^viiav rov /iF.yd/.ov fknv Kal auT^po^ ijftdv 'Ir/<Tov
\pcCTOL; the argument would have little or no weight. The fact that e7n6civeia is used four
times of Chriit in relation to the second advent would be very far from proving that it might not
be so used of God, the Father, also. Abundant examples may be adduced from Jewish writers to
show that any extraordinary display of divine power, whether exercised directly and known only
by its effects, or through an intermediate visible agent, as an angel, might be called an eTi^avtiOj
an " appearing " or " manifestation " of God. The word is used in the same way in heathen
Uterature to denote any supposed divine interpo<ition in human affairs, whether accompanied by
a visible appearance of the particular deity concerned, or not. See Note B.
t See also Acts iii. ao : " — and that he may senJ the Christ whu hath been appointed for you,
•ven Jesus.''
442 CRITICAL ESSAYS
that God should be represented as displaying his power and
glory at the tTrupdveia of Christ, accords with the account given
elsewhere of the accompanying events. The dead are to be
raised at the second advent, a glorious display of divine
power, even as Christ is said to have been " raised from the
dead by \.\i^ glory of the Father** (Rom. vi. 4). But it is ex-
pressly declared by Paul that, "as Jesus died and rose again,
even so shall God, through Jesus, bring with him them that
have fallen asleep** (i Thess. iv. 14; comp. Phil. iii. 21) ; and
again, '*God both raised the Lord, and will raise up us by his
power** (i Cor. vi. 14). There is to be a general judgment
at the second advent ; but Paul tells us that " God hath ap-
pointed a day in which he \^ill judge the world in righteous-
ness by a man whom he hath ordained** (Acts xvii. 31), or,
as it is elsewhere expressed, "the day va which he will judge
the secrets of men, through Jesus Christ" (Rom. ii. 16,
comp. ver. 5, 6); and that "we shall all stand before the
judgment seat of God '* (Rom. xiv. 10). So the day referred
to is not only called "the day of the Lord Jesus** (i Cor. i.
8, V. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 14), or "the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil. i.
6), or "the day of Christ*' (Phil. i. 10, ii. 16), but "the day
of God" (2 Pet. iii. 12). Here, as throughout the economy
of salvation, there is t'C" '^f-o<;. o -arijp^ l^ oh ra ndwa, Kal E\q KVpu)^,
'\TjGovq Xpiaro^', <W ov ra Tzdvrn (l Cor. viii. 6).
It appears to me, then, that Bishop Ellicott*s " palmary
argument," as he calls it, derives all its apparent force from
a misstatement of the question ; and when we consider the
express language of Christ respecting his appearing in the
glory of his Father, the express statement of Paul that this
l-i<;Hii'ria of Christ is one which God, the Father, will show
(i Tim. vi. 15), and the corresponding statement of the
writer to the Hebrews (i. 6, " when he again bringeth," etc.) ;
when we consider that in the ccmcomitafits of the second
advent, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment ot
men, in which the glory of Christ will be displayed, he is
everywhere represented as acting, not independently of God,
the Father, but in union with him, as his agent, so that
" the Father is glorified in the Son," can we find the slight-
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 443
est difficulty in supposing that Paul here describes the
second advent as an " appearing of the glory of the great
God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ " ?
{b) Bishop Ellicott's second argument is " that the imme-
diate context so specially relates to our Lord." He can
only refer to ver. 14, "who gave himself for us," etc. The
argument rests on the assumption, that when a writer
speaks of two persons, A and B, there is something strange
or unnatural in adding a predicate to B alone. If it is not
instantly clear that such an assumption contradicts the most
familiar facts of language, one may compare the mention of
God and Christ together in Gal. i. 3, 4, and i Tim. ii. 5, 6,
and the predicate that in each case follows the mention of
the latter. The passage in Galatians reads : '* Grace to you
and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
who gave himself for us, that he might deliver us," etc.
(f) The third point is "that the following mention of
Christ's giving Himself up for us, of His abasement, does
fairly account for St. Paul's ascription of a title, otherwise
unusual, that specially and antithetically marks His glory."
— "Otherwise uniisiiaV' ! Does Bishop EUicott mean that
"the great God" is simply an "unusual" title of Christ in
the New Testament } But this is not an argument, but only
an answer to an objection, which we shall consider by and
by. It is obvious that what is said in ver. 14 can in itself
afiFord no proof or presumption that Paul in what precedes
has called Christ "the great God." He uses similar lan-
guage in many passages (e,g, those just cited under b from
Gal. i. 3, 4, and i Tim. ii. 5, 6), in which Christ is clearly
distinguished from God.
i^d) The fourth argument is "that \Leya7Mv would seem
uncalled for if applied to the Father." It seems to me, on
the contrary, to have a solemn impressiveness, suitable to
the grandeur of the event referred to. It condenses into
one word what is more fully expressed by the accumulation
of high titles applied to God in connection with the same
subject in i Tim. vi. 14-16, suggesting that the event is
one in which the power and majesty of God will be con-
444 CRITICAL ESSAYS
spicuously displayed. The expression "the great God"
does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but it is
not uncommon in the Old Testament and later Jewish writ-
ings as a designation of Jehovah. See Note C. p. 456.
(e) Bishop Ellicott's last argument is that "apparently
two of the ante-Nicene (Clem. Alexand. Protrept, 7 [ed.
Pott.] and Hippolytus, quoted by, Words.) and the great
bulk of post-Nicene writers concurred in this interpreta-
tion."— As to this, I would say that Clement of Alexandria
does not cite the passage in proof of the deity of Christ, and
there is nothing to show that he adopted the construction
which refers the rob ^tyakov deov to him.* Hippolytus {D^
,Antichristo, c. 6"])^ in an allusion to the passage, uses the
expression ^T^^vewv rov Oew K(u auTt/poc ir/fiijv of Chrfst, which may
seem to indicate that he adopted the construction just men-
tioned. But it is to be observed that he omits the 'w «54-w,
and the fieyd?jiv. and the 'irfaov Xpiarov after oofrf/pog ^fiuv, so that it
is not certain that if he had quoted the passage fully, instead
of merely borrowing some of its language, he would have
applied all the terms to one subject. My principal reason
for doubt is, that he has nowhere in his writings spoken of
Christ as o uyyar f^y.',-;, with or without r]u(:>t>, and that it would
hardly have been co.isistcnt with his theology to do this,
holding so strongly as he did the doctrine of the subordina-
tion of the Son.
It is true that many writers of the fourth century and
later apply the passage to Christ. At that period, and
earlier, when ^' '>; had become a common appellation of
Christ, and especially when he was very often called *' our
God" or ^'our G )d and Saviour," the construction of Tit. ii.
* Winstanley well remarks, in hi? valuable essay on the use of ihe Greek article in the New
Testament, that 'the observation of Whitby that Clem. Alex, quotes this text of St. Paul, when
he is asserting the divinity of Christ, if it in^an that he quotes it as an argument, or proof , is
a mistake. Clemens is all along speaking of a past appearance only, and therefore he begms his
quotation with a former ver-se, /} x<i,>'(' ~oi' t^tDU • • • etc., and then proceeds tovto iort ro
aaua to tiaii'ov [I omit the qu)tation], etc., so that his authority inclines the other Mray; for
he has not appealed to this text, though he had it before him, when he was expressly asserting
the divinity of Christ, as ihor, and ,) t'hor hv/or^ but not as o uiyaq 6e6r.^* {^Vindication of
certain Passaf^es in thr Comnf^n Engliih Version of the *V. 7"., p. 35 f., Amer. ed., Cambridge,
1819.)
Wvt supposition of Word nvorth and Bishop Jack*on that Ignatius (£'/A. c i) refers to this
passage has, so far as I can see, no foundation.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 445
13 which refers the deoi to him would seem the most natural.
But the Njw Testament use of language is widely different ;
and on that account a construction which would seem most
natural in the fourth century, might not even suggest itself
to a reader of the first century. That the orthodox Fathers
should give to an ambiguous passage the construction which
suited their theology and the use of language in their time
was almost a matter of course, and furnishes no evidence
that their resolution of the ambiguity is the true one.
The cases are so numerous in which the Fathers, under
the influence of a dogmatic bias, have done extreme violence
to very plain language, that we can attach no weight to their
preference in the case of a construction really ambiguous,
like the present. For a notable example of such violence,
see 2 Cor. iv. 4, '» ol^ 0 dedg tov aiuvo^ rovrov crv^Awtrev ra vo^fiara ruv
aTTioTuv, where, through fear of Gnosticism or Manichaeism,
Irenaeus {Haer, iii. 7, § i ; comp. iv. 29 (al. 48), § 2), Ter-
tullian {Adv, Marc, v. 11), Adamantius or Pseudo-Origen
(De recta in Dcum fide, sect. ii. Orig. Opp, i. 832), Chrysos-
tom, Theodoret, CEcumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Pri-
masius, Sedulius Scotus, Haymo, and others make rov aiuvog
Tovrov depend on amarcjv instead of o ee6c* a construction which
we should hardly hesitate to call impossible.
I have now considered all the arguments of Bishop Elli-
cott, citing them in full in his own language. It seems to
me that no one of them has any real weight ; and that a
consideration of his "palmary argument," which is the one
mainly urged by the advocates of his construction of the
passage, really leads to the opposite view. The same is
true also, I conceive, of his reference to the expression
"the great God."
But there is a new argument which it may be worth while
to notice. In the English translation of the second edition
of his BiblicO'TJicological Lexicon of N, T, Greek, Cremer
has added to the article ^^k a long note on Tit. ii. 13 which
* For many of these writers see Whitby, Diss. tU Script. InUrp. ucMndum Fatr«m Cotm-
mentariost p. 275 f. Alford*s note on this passage has a number of false references, copied
without acknowledj^ent from Mever, and ascribes this interpretation (after Meyer) to Origen,
who opposes it {PPP- iiL 497, ed. De la Rue).
446 CRITICAL ESSAYS
is not in the German original, and has made other altera-
tions in the article. He here contends that rov ficyd/jov Ofov
refers to Christ. He gives up entirely the argument from
the want of the article before aur^po^, on which he had in-
sisted in the German edition. Nor does he urge the argu-
ment from the use of t-i(*>dv£ia. His only arguments are
founded on the assertion that ver. 14 "by its form already
indicates that in ver. 13 only one subject is presented ** — an
argument which has already been answered (see p. 443,
under b), and to which, it seems to me, one cannot reason-
ably attach the slightest weight — and the fact that ver. 14
contains the expression >-aof Tcepuwato^, ** a peculiar people," an
expression used in the O. T. to denote the Jewish nation
as the chosen people, the peculiar possession of God. The
argument rests on the assumption that because in ver. 14
the Apostle has transferred this expression to the church of
Christ, "the great God" in ver. 13 must be taken as a
predicate of Christ.
The case seems to me to present no difficulty, and to
afford no ground for such an inference. The relation of
Christians to God and Christ is such that, from its very
nature, the servants of Christ are and are called the servants
of God, the church of Christ the church of God, the king-
dom of Christ the kingdom of God. So Christians are and
arc represented as the peculiar people and possession of
Christ, and at the same time the peculiar people and pos-
session of God (i Pet. ii. 9, 10).* If Christians belong to
Christ, they must belong also to God, the Father, to whom
Christ himself belongs (i Cor. iii. 23, "ye are Christ's,
and Christ is God's "). To infer, then, that because in
ver. 14 Christians are spoken of as Christ's peculiar people,
the title "great God" must necessarily be understood as
applied to him in ver. 13 is a very extraordinary kind of
reasoning.
Such are the arguments which have been urged for the
translation, " the appearing of the glory of our great God
•CcTmp Clement of Rome, i £"/ ad Cor. c. 64 (formerly 58): " May the All-s«einic God
and M.^ster ot Spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through Aim
for a peculiar people (fif '/.aov 7rFf)(oicioi'), grant," etc.
ox THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 1 3 447
and Saviour Jesus Christ." Let us now consider what is to
be said for the construction which makes rov fMeyd/u)v deov 2Lnd
'Irfoov Xpurrov distluct SUbjCCtS.
In the case of a grammatical ambiguity of this kind in any
classical author, the first inquiry would be, What is the
usage of the writer respecting the application of the title in
question ? Now this consideration, which certainly is a
most reasonable one, seems to me here absolutely decisive.
While the word o^o; occurs more than five hundred times in
the Epistles of Paul, not including the Epistle to the He-
brews, there is not a single instance in which it is clearly
applied to Christ.*
In the case then of a question between two constructions,
either of which is grammatically possible, should we not
adopt that which accords with a usage of which we have
five hundred examples, without one clear exception, rather
than that which is in opposition to it } The case is made
still stronger by the fact that we have here not only Btoi, but
luya.7jov deov.
Even if we do not regard the Pastoral Epistles as written
by Paul, and confine our attention to them only, we reach
the same result. Observe how clearly God, the Father, is
distinguished from Christ in i Tim. i. i, 2 ; ii. 3-5 ; v. 21 ; vi.
* The passages in the writings of Paol in which the title Oi6^ has ever been supposed to be
IpTen to Christ are very few, and are all cases of very doubtful construction or doubtful reading.
Alford finds it given to him only in Rom. ix. 5 ; but here, as is well known, many of the most
eminent modem scholars, make the last part of the verse a doxology to God, the Father. So, for
example, Winer, Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette, Ewald; Tischendorf, Kuenen and Cobet, Butt-
mamn, Hahn (ed. 1861); Professor Jowett, Profeisor J. H. Godwin, Professor Lewis Campbell
of the University of St. Andrew*s, the Rev. Dr. B. H. Kennedy, Regius Professor of Gr«ek in
the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Hort. Of the other passages, Eph. v. $ and a Thess. i. 12
have already been considered. In i Tim. iii. 16 there is now a general agreement among critical
scholars that 6^ hpavepC^T] and not Bebc eoai'efXjSrf is the true reading. In Col. ii. a, the
only remainmg passage, the text is unceruin ; but if we adopt the reading rot; uvfrrrjpiov rob
Oeoi' Xfuarov, the most probable construction is that which regards Xpifrrov a» in apposition
with tntrrrjpiov, which is confirmed by Col. i. 37. This is the view of Bishop EUicott, Bishop
Lightfoot, Wieseler (on Gal. i. 1), and Westcott and Hort. Others, as Meyer, Huther, and
Kldpper, translate " the mystery of the God of Christ*' (comp. Eoh. i. 3, 17, etc). Steiger ukes
XpiOTOv as in apposition with roh fifni\ s^od thus finds Christ here called God ; but to justify
his interpretation the Greek should rather be Xpiaroi' rov thov (comp. De Wette).
The habitual, and I believe uniform^ usage of Paul corresptonds with his language i Cor.
Tin. 6.
Here and elsewhere I intentionally pass by the question whether Paul's view of the nature of
Christ and his relation to th* Father w m d h ive alio ved him to designate Christ as 6 Ufyac ^f OC
xoi our^p Tjuotv. This would lead to a long discussion of many passages. My argument rests
00 the undisputed facts respecti ig h:s habitual use of language.
44^ CRITICAL ESSAYS
13-16; 2 Tim. i. 2, 8, 9; iv. i ; Tit. i. I, 3 (comp. for the
Kaf iTTiraynv I Tim. i. I, Rom. xvi. 26), 4; iii. 4-6. Observe,
particularly, that the expression " God our Saviour " is ap-
plied solely to the Father, who is distinguished from Christ
as our Saviour ; God being the primal source of salvation,
and Christ the medium of communication, agreeably to the
language of Paul, 2 Cor. v. 18, ra 6e Trdvra sk tov deov, rov Kara/J/A^av^
7oqf)ua^eavrCiALa\piaTov\ comp. I Cor. viii. 6. See I Tim. i. I ;
ii. 3-S ; iv. lo ; Tit. i. 1-4 ; iii. 4-6 ; compare also Jude
25. Such being the marked distinction between Oeoq and
Xp trrof in other passages of these Pastoral Epistles, should
we not adopt the construction which recognizes the same
here }
An examination of the context will confirm the conclu-
sion at which we have arrived. I have already shown that
the title " God our Saviour '* in the Pastoral Epistles belongs
exclusively to the Father. This is generally admitted ; for
example, by Bloomfield, Alford, and Ellicott. Now the con-
nection of ver. 10, in which this expression occurs, with ver.
1 1 is obviously such, that if Beov denotes the Father in the
former it must in the latter. Regarding it then as settled
that^e^rin ver. 11 denotes the Father (and I am not aware
that it has ever been disputed),* is it not harsh to suppose
that the '>'"■ in ver. 13, in the latter part of the sentence,
denotes a different subject from the dtnh \n ver. 11, at the
beginning of the same sentence ^ It appears especially
harsh, when we n )tice the beautiful correspondence of
't-;oin'fmv\n vcr. 1 3 with the i-toav,i of ver. ii. This corre-
spondence can hardly have been undesigned. As the first
advent of Christ was an appearing or visible manifestation
of the grace of God, who sent him, so his second advent
will be an appearing of the glory of God, as well as of Christ.
To sum up : the reasons which are urged for giving this
verbally ambiguous passage the construction which makes
**the great God" a designation of Christ, are seen, when
examined, to have little or no weight ; on the other hand,
• If it shoud be questioned, all doubt will probably be removed by a comparison of the vene
with Tiu "li. 3-7 and 2 Tim. i. 8. o.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 449
the construction adopted in the common English version,
and preferred by the American Revisers, is favored, if not
required, by the context (comparing ver. 13 with ver. 11);
it perfectly suits the references to the second advent in
other parts of the New Testament ; and it is imperatively
demanded by a regard to Paul's use of language y unless we
arbitrarily assume here a single exception to a usage of
which we have more than five hundred examples.
I might add, though I would not lay much stress on the
fact, that the principal ancient versions, the Old Latin, the
Vulgate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Coptic, and
the Arabic, appear to have given the passage the construc-
tion which makes God and Christ distinct subjects. The
Aethiopic seems to be the only exception. Perhaps, how-
ever, the construction in the Latin versions should be re-
garded as somewhat ambiguous.
Among the modern scholars who have agreed with all the
old English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, the Ge-
nevan, the Bishops' Bible, the Rhemish, and the Authorized)
in preferring this construction are Erasmus, Calvin, Luther,
Grotius, LeClerc, Wetstein, Moldenhawcr, Michaelis, Benson,
Macknight, Archbishop Newcome, Roscnmiillcr, Hcinrichs,
Schott, Bretschneider, Neandcr {Planting and Training of
the Christian Churchy Robinson's revised trans., p. 468,
note t)> De Wette (and so Moller in the 3d ed. of De
Wette, 1867), Meyer (on Rom. ix. 5), Fritzsche {Ep. ad
Rom. ii. 265 ff.), Grimm, Baumgarten-Crusius {N, T, Gr,
ed. Schott, 1839), Krehl, H. F. T. L. Ernesti {Voin Ur-
sprtmge dcr Siindcy p. 235 f.), Schumann {Christus, 1852,
ii. 580, note), Messncr {Die Lchre dcr Apostcl, 1856, p. 236
f.), Huther, Ewald, Holtzmann (in Bunsen's Bibckverk, and
with more hesitation in his Die Pastoralbriefe^ 1880), Bey-
schlag {Christol. des N. 7!, i865, p. 212, note), Rothe {Dog-
niatik, II. i. (1870), p. no, note 3), Conybcare and Howson,
Alford, Fairbairn, with some hesitation {The Pastoral Epis-
tles, Edin. 1874, pp. 55, 282-285), Davidson, Prof. Lewis
Campbell (in the Contcmp, Rev, for Aug., 1876), Immer
{TheoL d. N 7"., 1877, p. 393), W. F. Gess {Christi Person
45© CRITICAL ESSAYS
U9ul Werk, Abth. II. (1878), p. 330), in opposition to the
view expressed in his earlier work, Die Lehre von der Person
Christi (1856), p. 88 f., Reuss {Lcs Epttres Pauliniennes,
Paris, 1878, ii. 345), Farrar {Life and Work of St Paul, ii.
536, cf. p. 615, note i) ; and so the grammarians Winer and
T. S. Green (comp. liis Twofold N. T,). In the case of one
or two recent writers, as Pfleiderer and Weizsacker, who
have adopted the other construction, there is reason to
regard them as influenced by their view of the non-Pauline
authorship of the Epistle, disposing them to find in its
Christology a doctrine different from that of Paul.
Very many others, as Heydenreich, Flatt, Tholuck {Comm,
sum Brief an die Romer, 5te Ausg., 1856, p. 482), C F.
Schmid {Bibt TheoL des N, 7"., 2te Aufl., p. 540), Luthardt,
leave the matter undecided. Even Bloomfield, in the Ad-
denda to his last work {Critical An flotations , Additional and
Supplementary^ on the N, 7!, London, i860, p. 352), after re-
tracting the version given in his ninth edition of the Greek
Testament, candidly says : " I am ready to admit that the
mode of interpreting maintained by Huther and Al[ford]
completely satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the
sentence ; that it is both structurally and contextually quite
as probable as the other, and perhaps more agreeable to the
Apostle's way of writing."
The view of Lange {Christlichc Dogmatik,Yi€\^^h, 185 1,
ii. 161 f.), Van Hengel {Interp. Ep. Pauli ad Romanos, ii.
358, note), and Schenkel {D.is Christusbild der Apostel, 1879,
p. 357), that 'itmv^piGTnv is here in apposition to m<5o>>f, the
words which precede (-"»^ i^n'- ^toc- kuI mjr. i}uC)r) being referred to
the Father,* has so little to command it that it may be
passed over without discussion.
* The punctuation in the margin in Westcott and Hort's iVT. T. in Greek is alto intended to
represent this view.
ox THE CONSTRUCTIOK OF TITUS II. I3 451
NOTE A. (See p. 440.)
On the Omission of the Article before aurtjpo^ ifiQv,
Middleton's rule is as follows : " When two or more attributives
joined by a copulative or copulatives are assumed of [assumed to belong
to] the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is
inserted; before the remaining ones it is omitted.'* (Doctrine of the
Greek Article^ Chap. III. Sect. IV. § 2, p. 44, Am. edition.) If the
article is not inserted before the second of the two assumable attribu-
tives thus connected, he maintains that both must be understood as
describing the same subject.
By attributives he understands adjectives, participles, and nouns
which are " significant of character^ relation^ or dignity, ^^
He admits that the rule is not always applicable to plurals (p. 49) ;
and, again, where the attributives "are in their nature plainly incompat-
ible.'* " We cannot wonder," he says, " if in such instances the principle
of the rule has been sacrificed to negligence, or even to studied brevity.
. . . The second article should in strictness be expressed ; but in such
cases the writers knew that it might be safely understood " (pp. 51, 52).
The /r/«ri^/f which covers all the cases coming under Middleton's
rule, so far as that rule bears on the present question, is, I believe, sim-
ply this : The definite article is inserted before the second attributive
when it is felt to be needed to distinguish different subjects ; but when
the two terms connected by a copulative are shown by any circumstance
to denote distinct subjects, then the article may be omitted, for the ex-
cellent reason that it is not needed.*
Middleton's rule, with its exceptions, applies to the English language
as well as to the Greek. Webster (Wm.) remarks in his Syntax and
Synonyms of the Greek Testament : —
"In English, the Secretary and Treasurer means one person ; the
Secretary and the Treasurer mean two persons. In speaking of horses,
the black and white means the piebald, but the black and the white
mean two different horses." (pp. 35, 36.)
But this rule is very often broken when such formal precision of ex-
pression is not felt to be necessary. If I should say, ** I saw the Presi-
dent and Treasurer of the Boston and Albany Railroad yesterday," no
one, probably, would doubt that I spoke of two different persons, or
(unless perhaps Mr. G. Washington Moon) would imagine that I was
violating the laws of the English language. The fact that the two offices
referred to are generally or always in such corporations held by different
persons would prevent any doubt as to the meaning. Again, the remark
• See the remarks (by Andrews Norton) in the Appendix to the American edition of Win-
Stanley's Vindicatien tf Certain Passages in the Common £nf. yersicn 0/ the N. 7"., p. 45 ff. ;
or Norton's SiaUmetU 0/ Reasons t etc., 2d ed. (xK56)« pp. 199-20J.
452 CRITICAL ESSAYS
that " Mr. A. drove out to-day with his black and white horses " would
be perfectly correct English and perfectly unambiguous if addressed to
one who knew that Mr. A. had only four horses, two of them black and
the other two white.
Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we
read that Jesus '*cast out all those that were selling and buying in the
temple," ro\% Tru/ovvrac *"** dyopa^ovrac. No one can reasonably suppose
that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying.
In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of roi'c before
ayof)n:^ovTag -J here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to
distinguish them.
In the case before us, the omission of the article before au-ijpo^ seems
to me to present no difficulty, — not because aurf/poc is made sufficiendy
definite by the addition of ^fiav (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ
is often called " our Saviour," v *5^>« '^^ /lejd'Aov Oeoh kgI oarfjpoq v.wur,
standing alone^ would most naturally be understood of one subject,
namely, God, the Father ; but the addition of Tt^tou Xpiarov to ODrfipo^
t)}iC)'> changes the case entirely, restricting the aarf/fx)^ rj/iCtv to a person or
being who, according to Paul's habitual use of language^ is distinguished
from the person or being whom he designates as o ^fof, so that there was
no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in
2 Thess. i. 12, the expression Kara r;)v x^i^^"^ ^<>^ ^f<>^ W^^ '^'^ Kvpiov would
naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required
before Kvpiuv if two were intended; but the simple addition of 'Iffooi*
Xi>rf77>w to Kvpiov makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear
without the insertion of the article.
But the omission of the article before the second of two subjects
connected by k"-' is not without effect. Its absence naturally leads us to
conceive of them as united in some common relation, while the repeti-
tion of the article would present them to the mind as distinct objects
of thought. The difference between the two cases is like the difference
between the expressions "the kingdom of Christ and God " and '• the
kingdom of Christ and of God " in English. The former expression
would denote one kingdom, belonging in some sense to both ; the latter
would ])ermit the supposition that two distinct kingdoms were referred
to, though it would not require this interpretation. The repetition of
the preposition, however, as of the article, brings the subjects sepa-
rately before the mind. In the present case, the omission of the article
before m.»r;;/)or, conjoining the word closely with f^^"t\ may indicate that
the glory spoken of belongs in one aspect to God and in another to
Christ (comp. Eph. v. 5); or that the glory of God and the glory of
Christ are displayed in conjunction (comp. 2 Thess. i. 12^ Kara ri/v x^fx^
roi ihiih i/uC)V Kill KVj)ii)v 'I. X. ; Luke ix. 26).
There may be still another reason for the omission of the article
here before '^ •»''"'■' v''"^''. or, perhips I should say, another effect of its
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 1 3 453
absence. It is a recognized principle that the omission of the article
before an appellative which designates a person tends to fix the atten-
tion on the quality or character or peculiar relation expressed by the
appellative, while the insertion of the article tends to throw into the
shade the inherent meaning of the term, and to give it the force of a
simple proper name. For example, in Heb. i. 2 h' ru vt<ft would simply
mean "in {or by) the Son," or "his Son"; but the omission of the
article (^v vie) emphasizes the significance of the term vide, — " by one
who is a »SV7«," and in virtue of what that designation expresses is far
above all " the prophets." (Comp. T. S. Green, Gram, of the N. T.y
2d ed., pp. 47 f., 38 f.) So here the meaning may be, " the appearing of
the glory of the great God and a Saviour oi us," one who is our Saviour^
"Jesus Christ" — essentially equivalent to "of the great God and Jesus
Christ as our Saviour " (comp. Acts xiii. 23); the idea suggested being
that the salvation or deliverance of Christians will be consummated at
the second advent, when Christ "shall appear, to them that wait for
him, unto salvation^ Comp. Phil. iii. 20, 21, " For our citizenship is
in heaven, from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus
Christ, f^ ov Koi aurf)f}a cnreKdexofii^^d Kvpiov 'h/aohv Xfuarov, who shall change
the body of our humiliation," etc. ; Rom. viii. 23, 24, xiii. 1 1 ; i Thess.
V. 8, 9 ; Heb. ix. 28 ; i Pet. i. 5. The position of auTfjpo^ ^jnuv before
*lrfaov XpiffTov, as well as the absence of the article, favors this view ;
comp. Acts xiii. 23 ; Phil, iii 20, and contrast Tit. i. 4.
The points which I would make, then, are that the insertion of the
article before ourr/poc was not needed here to show that the word desig-
nates a subject distinct from rob fieyd/Mv $eov ; and that its absence serves
to bring out the thoughts that, in the event referred to, the glory of God
and that of Christ are displayed together^ and that Christ then appears
as Saviour^ in the sense that the salvation of Christians, including what
St. Paul calls " the redemption of the body," is then made complete.
These are conceptions which accord with the view which the Apostle
has elsewhere presented of the second advent.
But as many English writers still assume that the construction of
Tit. ii. 13 and similar passages has been settled by Bishop Middleton,
I will quote in conclusion a few sentences, by way of caution, from one
of the highest authorities on the grammar of the Greek Testament,
Alexander Buttmann. He says : —
" It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane
literature or to the N. T., to bring down to rigid rules which have
no exception, the inquiry when with several substantives connected
by conjunctions the article is repeated, and when it is not . . . From
this fact alone it follows, that in view of the subjective and arbitrary
treatment of the article on the part of individual writers (of. § 124, 2)
it is very hazardous in particular cases to draw important inferences
affecting the sense or even of a doctrinal nature, from the single cir-
454 CRITICAL ESSAYS
cumstance of the use or omission of the article; see e^. Tit ii. 13;
Jude 4; 2 Pet. i. i and the expositors of these passages.'* {Gram, of the
N. T, Greeks § 125, 14; p. 97, Thayer's trans.)
NOTE B. (Sec p. 441 «.•)
Tke Use of kTrupdveia and Kindred Terms with Reference to God,
It has already been observed that the expression used in Tit. ii. 13
is not iTTif^vuav roif fi€yd?x)v deoh, but kTTujMveiav rfjq i^d^tfg Toi fieyd?jov Seov,
and that the reference of the title " the great God " to the Father accords
perfectly with the representation elsewhere in the New Testament that
/he glory of God, the Father, as well as of Christ, will be displayed at
the second advent. This reference, therefore, presents no difficulty.
But the weakness of the argument against it may be still further illus-
trated by the use of the term ^Tf^vfm and kindred expressions in Jose-
phus and other Jewish writings. It will be seen that any extraordinary
manifestation of divine power, whether exerted directly or through an
intermediate agent, is spoken of as an exf^dvcm of God.
1. For example, the parting of the waters of the Red Sea is described
as "the appearing" or ''manifestation of God." Mwua^f 6h opciv rf/v
ETTu^tdvetav tov fteov, k. r. X. (Joseph. Ant. ii. 1 6. § 2.)
2. Speaking of the journey through the wilderness, Josephus says:
"The cloud was present, and, standing over the tabernacle, signified
the appearing of Gody'* rr/v kmpdveiav tov deov. (Ant. iii. 14. § 4.)
3. Josephus uses both V ^npovcia tov fimw and V e-iQdveia [tov Oeov'^
in reference to a miraculous shower of rain (Ant. xviii. 8. (al. 10) § 6).
So a violent thunder storm, which deterred the army of Xerxes from
attacking Delphi, is described by Diodorus Siculus as 7 tuv ^kov tTit.a-
i-eta (Bid/. Hist. xi. 14). Comp. Joseph. Ant. xv. ir. (al. 14) § 7, where
// fuoni'tta 7oi> tk,,r is used in a similar way. Observe also how, in
Herod's speech (./;//. xv. 5. (al. 6) § 3), angels are spoken of as bringing
God ^i<: iiiui'ii'iinv to men.
4. In reference to the miraculous guidance of Abraham's servant
when sent to procure Rebecca as a wife for Isaac, the marriage is said
to have been brought about »tm ^'fm^ l-Tioaveiar, where we might say,
**by a divine interposition." (Joseph. Ant. i. 16. § 3.)
5. After giving an account of the deliverance of Elisha from the
troops sent by Ben-Hadad to arrest him, which were struck with blind-
ness, Josephus says that the king "marvelled at the strange event, and
the appearing (or manifestation) and power of the God of the Israelites
(tjjv tov tifrjv TOV 'lrTjifUj//7('.)i' '^-tijiivnav kui Arraun)^ and at the prophet with
whom the Deity was so evidently present for help." (Ant. ix. 4. § 4.)
Elijah had prayed that God would ^'manifest (ruodviaa') his power and
presence,'^ -nnnvrrtav. [Ibid. § 3.)
6. In Josephus, Ant. v. 8. §^ 2, 3, the appearance of an angei sent by
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 45$
God is described as "a sight of God," « ^ *y*«Jf -ou %tob . ..rhv Qthv
7. In 2 Mace. iii. 24, in reference to the horse with the terrible riHer,
and the angels that scourged Heliodorus, we read, o rCtv Trarefxjv [al.
irvci'ftdrwr] Kvpioq koX tclotk i^ovGta^ dwdar^ €m<;>dveiav fieyd}.i]v (TroirfGev,
and in ver. 30, tov rravroKpdropo^ kmoavivro^ Kvpiov, ** the Almighty
Lord having appeared^'' and farther on, ver. 34, Heliodorus is spoken
of as having been " scourged by him^'* 'v^" air oh, i.€, the Lord, according
to the common text, retained by Grimm and Keil. But here for i-' avrov
Fritzsche reads i^ oipavov, which looks like a gloss (comp. ii. 21, rac i^
ovpavov ycvofitvaq k-zioavtiaq),
8. The sending of a good angel is described as an i'Lodvtia rov dew,
2 Mace. XV. 27, comp. w. 22, 23. Observe also that in 2 Mace. xv. 34
and 3 Mace. v. 35 rov k-rioavrj Kvpiov or dtdv does not mean " the glorious
Lord {or God) " as it has often been misunderstood, but irnoavii^ desig-
nates God as one who manifests his power in the deliverance of his
people, a present help in time of need, "the interposing God" (Bissell).
Compare the note of Valesius (V'alois) on Eusebius, HisL EccL ii. 6. § 2.
9 See also 2 Mace. xii. 22 ik r^q rov -trdvra toopCiVTo^ emoavelac yevofiivov
ex* avToi-q; comp. 2 Macc. xi. 8, lo, 1 3.
10. ''They made application to him who . . . always helpeth his por-
tion [his people] ^fr* crrzoavcmc, " 2 Macc. xiv. 15.
11. In 3 Macc. v. 8, we are told that the Jews " besought the Almighty
Lord to rescue them from imminent death f^^rd u€}a/.ouepoix emoaveiac,'*
and again, ver. 51, "to take pity on them /Jifrd fTfpavrmf." The answer
to the prayer is represented as made by the intervention of angels (vi. 18).
In eh. i. 9, God is spoken of as having glorified Jerusalem ev kmoaveia
fie^a/jorrperru.
12. In the Additions to Esther, Text B, vii. 6 (Fritzsche, Libr. Apoc,
K 71 p. 71X the sun and light in Mordecai's dream are said to represent
the l^toavla Tov fteov, ** appearing" {or manifestation) *'of God" in the
deliverance of the Jews.
13. In the so-called Second Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Cor-
inthians, c. 12, § I, we read: "Let us therefore wait hourly [or betimes,
Lig/t//.] for the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, because we
know not the day 0/ the appearing of God^ r^f i-xioavEiaq rov Ocoh.^^ The
roh Otfn\ employed thus absolutely, must, I think, refer to the Father,
according to the writer^s use of language. This consideration does not
seem to me invalidated by e. i, § i, or by the use of i-todveia in reference
to Christ, e. 1 7 ; but others may think differently.
The use of the term (moi'iveca in the later Greek classical writers
corresponds with its use as illustrated above. Casaubon has a learned
note on the word in his Exercit. ad Annates Eccles. Baronianas^ 11. xi.,
Ann. I., Num. 36 (p. 185, London, 1614), in which he says : " Graeci scr-p-
tores krrtodvEiav appellant apparition :m numinis quoquo tandem moiio
45^ CRITICAL ESSAYS
deus aliquti su.ic praesentinc sij^num dedisse crederetur^'* (Comp. his
note on Aihenaeus, xii. ir. al. 60.) Wesselinij in his note on Diodonis
Siculus, i. 25, repeats this, and adds other illustrations from Diodorus,
namely: iii. 62; iv. 82 [v. 62?]; xi. 14; and xiv. 69 (a striking example).
See also the story of the vestal virgin in Dion. Hal. Ant, Rom. ii. 68
(cf. 69), and of Servius Tullius, ibid.^ iv. 2. Other examples are given
by Eisner, Obss. Sacr, on 2 Pet. i. 16, and by the writers to whom he
refers. But it is not worth while to pursue this part of the subject
further here. One who wishes to do so will find much interesting
matter in the notes of the very learned Ezechiel Spanheim on Calli-
machus, Hymn, in Apoll. 13, and in Pallad. loi, and in his Disserta-
Hones de Prcestantia et Usu Numismatum antiquorum^ ed. nova, vol. L
(London, 1706), Diss, vii., p. 425 sqq.
I will only add in conclusion : If Paul could speak of the first advent
of Christ as an f T/poi^em of the grace of God (see i^eoavrf. Tit. ii. 1 1 ; iii. 4),
can we, in view of all that has been said, regard it as in the least degree
strange or unnatural that he should speak of his second advent as an
emcitdveia of the glory of God ?
NOTE C. (See p. 444.)
On the Expression^ "roh fityolov Oeov.
There is no other passage in the New Testament in which this
expression occurs, the reading of the '* received text" in Rev. xix. 17
havini; very slender support. Hut the epithet *' great" is so often applied
to God in the Old Testament and later Jewish writings, and is so appro-
priate in connection with the display of the divine power and glory in
the event referred to, that it is very wonderful that the use of the word
here should be regarded as an argument for the reference of the f^oc to
Christ on the ground that *' God the Father did not uccui the exalting
and laudatory epithet I'^yi':," as Usteri says {Paulin. Lckrbegriff, 5te
Aufl., p. 326). It mi:^ht be enough to answer, with Fritzsche, ** At ego
putaveram, Deum quum sit magrius^ jure etiam magnum appe 1 1 a ri*''
{Ep. ad Ro/n. ii. 268). But the following references will show how nat-
urally Paul miglit apply this designation to the Father: Deut. vi-. 21
(Sept. and Heb.), x. i 7 ; 2 Chron. ii. 5 (4) ; Neh. i. 5, vii. 6, ix. 32 ; Vs. Ixxvii.
13, Ixxxvi. 10; Jer. .xxxii. 18, 19; Dan. ii. 45, ix. 4; Psalt. Sal. ii. 33;
3 Mace. vii. 2. Comp. o nh.mnH: ihur, 3 Mace. i. 16, iii. 11, v. 25, vii. 22;
"the great Lord,'* Kcclus. xxxix. 6, xlvi. 5; 2 Mace. v. 20, xii. 15. So
very often in the Sibylline Oracles. I have noted thirty-one examples
in the Third Book alone, the principal part of which was the production
of a Jewish writer in the second century before Christ.
Though all will a<;ree that God, the Father, does not "need" exalt-
ing epithets, such cpitiicts are applied to him freely by the Apostle Paul
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 1 3 457
and other writers of the New Testament. For example, he is called by
Paul " the incorruptible God," ** the living God," " the eternal God,"
"the only wise God," "the only God," " the invisible God," "the living
and true God," " the blessed God " ; and, since there is no other place
in which the Apostle has unequivocally designated Christ as Oeo^, much
less 6e6^ with a high epithet, it certainly seems most natural to suppose
that 6 fiiyac ^c<5f here designates the Father. The Bishop of London
(in the "Speaker's Commentary") appeals to i John v. 20, where he
assumes that Christ is designated as " the true God." But he must
be aware that this depends on the reference of the pronoun oitoc, and
that many of the best expositors refer this to the leading subject of the
preceding sentence, — nzmelVf rdv ah/6tv6v ; so, /.j^., Erasmus, Grotius,
Wetstein, Michaelis, LUcke, De Wette, Meyer, Neander, Huther, Diister-
dieck, Gerlach, Briickner, Ewald, Holtzmann, Braune, Haupt, Rothe,
C. F. Schmid, Gess, Reuss, Alford, Farrar, Westcott, and Sinclair (in
EUicott's iV. T, Comm.)\ and so the grammarians Alt, Winer, Wilke,
Buttmann, and Schirlitz; comp. also John xvii. 3. So doubtful a pas-
sage, and that not in the writings of Paul, but John, can hardly serve
to render it probable that Paul has here applied the designation b fUyag
de6i to Christ rather than to God, the Father.
XIX.
I. JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER'S GERMAN BIBLE.
[From the Christian InUlUgtnctr for May 15, 1879.]
In my reply to Dr. Todd {Christian Intelligencer for April
24), I pointed out the futility of his objection to President
Woolsey's statement that i John v. 7 was " a passage which
Luther would not express in his translation/' — a statement
which, in the face of the plain fact that Luther did not
insert it in any one of the numerous editions of his transla-
tion published in his lifetime, Dr. Todd presumed to call a
"mistake." I will here simply remind the reader that
Erasmus introduced the passage into his third edition of the
Greek Testament in 1522, and that Luther died in 1546.
It has been contended, however, by some writers, that, at
least in the latter part of his life, the great Reformer
changed his mind, and received the text as genuine. (See
Knitters Neue Kntiken, Braunschw. 1785, p. 133 ff.) The
argument rests on the fact that in an exposition of the First
Epistle of John, written probably between the years 1543
and 1545, Luther commented on the verse without express-
ing any doubt of its genuineness. The question whether
Luther changed his mind is not important in itself, but is on
several accounts not without interest. I will therefore state
the circumstances of the case.
There are izvo expositions by Luther of the First Epistle
of John, both of which may be found, translated from the
original Latin into German, in vol. ix. of Walch's edition
of Luther's Sdmintliche Schriften, The first was written
somewhere between the years 1522 and 1524. (SeeWalch's
ed., ix. 908-1079, and Vorrede, pp. 18, 19.) In this,
I. JOHN V. 7 AND Luther's German bible 459
Luther, after quoting the passage of the three heavenly wit-
nesses, remarks : —
" These words are not found in the Greek Bibles ; but it
seems as if this verse had been inserted by the Orthodox
against the Arians. This, however, has not been done even
fittingly, for he [the Apostle] speaks here and there not of
the witnesses in heaven, but of the witnesses on earth/'
(Col. 1059.)
We here see that Luther felt not merely the deficiency of
the external evidence for the passage, but its internal in-
congruity.
The other exposition was certainly written after 1532, and
probably between 1543 and 1545. (See Knittel, ubi supra^
pp. 134, 135.) It first appeared in 1743, in Walch's edition
of Luther, vol. ix. coll. 1080-1251. In this exposition
Luther not unfrequently remarks upon Greek words, show-
ing that he had the Greek text before him. He is said to
have used as a manual in the later years of his life the edi-
tion of the Greek Testament published at Basle in 1540 by
Thomas Platter, which reproduces substantially the text
of the third edition of Erasmus. (See Luther's Bibeliiber-
setzung kritisch bearbeitct von Bindseil und Niemeyer, Theil
vii., Vorrede, p. xv. note f) This edition contains i John v.
7, like nearly all of the editions of the sixteenth century
published after 1522. In his remarks under i John v. 6,
which include the larger part of what he says about the
seventh verse, Luther begins with observing that "this pas-
sage is certainly very difficult and obscure." Speaking of
the three heavenly witnesses, he rejects the supposition that
the apostle refers to their testimony at the baptism and the
transfiguration of Jesus, because that was a testimony borne
on earth, not ** in heaven " ; and then explains it as given in
what some later theologians would call "the covenant of
redemption " made between the three persons of the Trinity.
Apparently, however, not very well satisfied with this ex-
planation, he concludes with saying, " If this is not the true
meaning of these words, I confess that I know no other."
(Col. 1225.) On the seventh verse itself, after quoting the
460 CRITICAL ESSAYS
words, he only says : " This is the testimony which is borne
by the three witnesses, [which] is in heaven, and also re-
mains there. The order here should be observ^ed, namely,
that the witness which is the last among the witnesses in
heaven is the first among the witnesses on earth ; and with
reason." He then proceeds to expound the eighth verse.
In this second exposition, Luther could no longer say that
1 John V. 7 was not in the Greek Bibles : it had already
appeared in a large number of editions of the Greek Testa-
ment. Having it before him, he gave such an explanation
of it as he could. It does not necessarily follow that he had
re-examined the subject, and convinced himself of the gen-
uineness of the passage ; but only that he did not choose to
go into the critical question. If he had really found any
new evidence in favor of the text, here was the place for
him to have said so. That he had not become convinced
of its genuineness appears from the fact that he did not
insert it in the edition of his translation published in 1545.
the year before his death. This is confirmed by the circum-
stance that he seems never to have quoted the passage as a
proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity, though he has
often treated of this doctrine in his voluminous writings.
For example, in his Anslcgitug dcr Ictzten Worte Davids,
2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7, §§ 65-96 (Walch, iii. 2835-59), he sets
forth the doctrine at length, quoting as proof-texts Ps. xxxiii.
6; Matt, xxviii. 19; Luke iii. 22; John v. 17, x. 30, 33, and
other passages, but ignoring i John v. 7. This treatise was
written in 1543. See also, for other discussions of the Trin-
ity by Luther, his works as edited by Walch, x. 1215-30;
xi. 1548-55; xii. 852-69; xiii. 1508-29, 2624-39. Neither
here nor anywhere else have I been able to find the pas-
saij:e quoted by Luther, though it was interpolated into
his Catechism by Lyser in 1600. (Rickli, Johaunis erster
Brief, Anhang, p. 40.) It is omitted in his Auslegung der
Epistel [\ John v. 4-12] ajfi Sountage nacli Osterii. (Walch,
xii. 698, 710.)
In view of all these facts, the judgment of Michaelis
seems reasonable. He remarks: —
I. JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER*S GERMAN BIBLE 46 1
" As to the circumstance that Luther in his later lecture
explained i John v. 7, after he had read it from the Greek
Testament, without entering into any critical inquiry into
its authority, it shows nothing more than that Luther dis-
tinguished exegetical from critical lectures, and that in
explaining the Greek Testament he interpreted what he and
.his hearers had before them. That he received it as genu-
ine is an inference which we are not authorized to make.**
{Introd. to the N. 71, trans, by Marsh, 2d ed., iv. 440 f.)
Bengel takes the same view. He says : " It is clear that
the passage was omitted by Luther not accidentally, but
deliberately; nay, his colleague Bugenhagen, with solemn
adjuration, warned all persons against ever inserting it.**
{Apparatus criticiis ad N. 71, ed. 2da, 1763, p. 459.) Luther's
own warning, prefixed to editions of his translation of the
New Testament from 1530 onward, ought to have been suffi-
cient. H is words are as follows : —
" Martin Luther. I beg all my friends and enemies,
my masters, printers and readers, to let this Testament be
mine. If they find it faulty, let them make one of their own
for themselves. I know well what I make ; I see well what
others make. But this Testament shall be Luther's German
Testament. For of playing the master and the critic [or **of
conceited correcting and criticising," meisterns und kliigclns]
there is nowadays neither measure nor end. And let every
man be warned against other copies. For I have had full
experience how carelessly and falsely others reprint what I
have printed.** (See Luther's Bibelubersetzimg von Bindseil
und Niemeyer, Theil vi. p. 15. Compare also the Warming
prefixed to Luther's Bible of 1541. Ibid., Theil vii. p. 21 f.)
The warning of Luther and the protest of Bugenhagen
(occasioned by the interpolation of i John v. 7 in an Evan-
gelieu' und Epistclbuch printed at Wittenberg in 1549) were
not without effect, for at least one generation. The first
edition of Luther's German Bible which contains i John
V. 7 appears to have been one printed at Frankfurt-am -Main
in 1582, 4to. Panzer and Monckeberg are wrong in saying
that the verse was inserted in a Hamburg edition in 1574.
462 CRITICAL ESSAYS
(See Huther, Krit, ex eg, Handb, iiber die drei Brief e des
Ap. JohanneSy 3te Aufl., 1868, p. 222, note.) It is found in
none of the numerous editions printed at Wittenberg before
1596. In the Swiss-German version (not published under
Luther's name) printed by Froschover at Zurich in 1529, it
was inserted in smaller type, and so in the edition of 1531 ;
in nearly all the later editions from 1534 to 1589 (that of
1 561 is said by Ebrard to be an exception), in brackets ; in
1597 without brackets, at which time it was also introduced
as a proof-text into the Zurich Catechism. The Basle edi-
tion by Byrlinger in 1552 is said to have it without brackets.
It was still omitted in Meissner's Wittenberg edition of
1607, and in a quarto edition printed at Wittenberg in 1620;
also, in Hamburg editions of 1596, 1619, and 1620. Since
this last date the interpolation has appeared in the number-
less editions of Luther's German Bible without mark of
doubt, except that it has been bracketed in the recent
aut/ton::ed '' Tevxstd edition'* of his version of the New Tes-
tament (Halle, Canstein'sche Bibelanstalt, 1871), with the
following note: "The bracketed words are wanting in
Luther's translation, and were not added till later." It
should be understood that the words aiif Erdcii, ** on earth,"
in vxrse 8, are not included in the brackets. They were
inserted by Luther in the ^xo, editions of his German Bible
printed at Wittenberg from 1541 to 1545 inclusive; but this
very fact shows that his attention was directed to the pas-
sa:;"e, and that the omission of the three heavenly witnesses
was intentional.
( Perhaps I may be pardoned for turning aside a moment
to correct two errors which hav^e been repeated from Rickli
(1828) by a large number of respectable scholars, as De
Wette, Tischendorf in his editions of 1841, 1849, 1859, and
1869-72, Bertheau in his edition of Liicke on the Epistles
of John (1856), Davidson, Braune in Lange's Commentary,
etc. They all speak of Robert Stephens as receiving the
passage in his editions of 1546-69, and Beza in his editions
of 1565-76. They should have said '* Robert Stephens /At-
elder in his editions of 1546-51, and Robert Stephens the
L JOSS V. 7 AJTD LUTHER'S GERMAN BIBLE 463
younger vn iiis edition of 1569" (the great Robert died ten
yc2U"S before) ; also, "Beza in his editions 1565-98." Beza
published no edition in 1576-: the one of that date erro-
neously ascribed to him by sev'eral writers was edited by
Henry Stephens.)
We may obsen'e, finally, that the other early Reformers
and friends of Luther generally' rejected the passage; so
Zwingli, Bullinger, CEcolampadius, Bugenhagen (Rickli, ubi
supra, pp. 35, 36^ So, also, according to Kettner {Historia
dicti Johaiifui . . . i John v. 7, etc., 1713, cap. 13), Melanch-
thon, Cruciger (or Creutziger), Justus Jonas, Forster, Auro-
gallus. (See Semler, Hist. 11. krit. Sjinmlwi^en iibcr i John
V. 7, I. 24S.) Bugenhagen, as we have seen, was especially
strenuous against it; see his Exfpsitio Jofiar, 1550, cited
by Rickli, p. 39. It was also omitted in the celebrated
Latin version of the Bible by Leo Judae, Pellicanus, Peter
Cholin, Rudolph Gualther, and others, printed at Zurich in
1543, foL, and commonly called the Zurich Bible or Versio
Tigurina. A marginal note explains the reasons for its
rejection. The passage was received, though with hesita-
tion, by Calvin, and without hesitation by Beza. Both of
them, however, explain " these three are one " as relating
not to unity of essence, but agreement in testimony.
To trace the history of this gross corruption of the text
in modern Translations, Catechisms, and Confessions of
Faith, especially in the Greek Church since the sLvteenth
centur}', and in modern editions of some ancient versions, as
the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic, might be inter-
esting and instructive, psychologically as well as critically ;
but there is no room for it here.
XX.
ON THE DIVISION OF THE GREEK NEW
TESTAMENT INTO VERSES.
[From the First Part of the ProUgonuna to Tischendorf • Bdiiio Octava critica mai9r.'\
The history of the division of the Bible into our present
verses is somewhat obscure, and many erroneous statements
are current respecting it. For example, Tischendorf (in
Herzog's Rcal-Eucyk. ii. 174, p. 422, 2d ed.) and Reuss {Gesch,
d. heiligefi Schriftcn N. 71, 5te Ausg., 1874, §387), after Jahn,
Bertholdt, and others, represent it as first introduced by
Robert Sfephens (Estienne) in bis edition of the Vulgate in
1548; De Wette {Eitil, in d. A, T. p. 112, 7te Ausg., 1852)
and Keil {EiiiL, 2te Aufl., 1859, P« S^^) say 1558. But no
edition of the Vulgate was prmted by Robert Stephens in
cither of those years. Others erroneously assign 1545,
others still 1557, as the date of the Latin Bible first divided
into verses. The best account of the matter that I know
of is given by Dr. William Wright, art. ''Verse" in Kitto*s
Cyclopcrdia of Bibl. Literature (London, 1845) ; in the third
edition (1870) this article is somewhat carelessly abridged.
On some points I have supplemented his statements.
The main facts are as follows. The nuvibering of the
Masoretic verses in the Old Testament is supposed to have
been first made by Rabbi Isaac Nathan, for convenience of
reference in his Hebrew Concordance, completed A.D. 1448,
and first printed at Venice in 1524.* The Quincuplcx Psal-
ter.uviy printed by Henry Stephens the elder at Paris in
1509, and edited by Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (Jacques Le
Fcvre d'Estaples), is the first edition of any part of the Old
* The dates 1445 and 1523 are sometimes inacciiratelv jxiven. These errors are corrected
by liindseil, Concord. Homer. Specimen, Halis, 1867, Svo, Pro'ej^om. p. xvi., and p. xviij., note.
VER-E DIVISION^ :X THE NEW TESTAMENT 465
Testament in which the Mi*;»re:ic verses are numbered by
Arabic h::ures. The first ei:::on *A the whulc Bible divided
into verses is the Latin tnr.sb:: n bv Sanctes Pa.rninus,
printed at Lyons in i^zS. Bur in the Apocrypha and the
New Testament his kV:\i<[ .>n w:l> v^ry different from ours,
the verses bein^ twice or three rim.s as Ion:;; and it seems
to have been followed in r. i -^ther edition.
The first edition of the New Testament divided into our
present verses was printed by Robert Stephens at Geneva
in 155 1, in 2 vols. i6mo. the Greek text f>ccupying the
centre of the page, with the Latin version of Erasmus on
one side and the Vulgate on the <»ther. His son Henry
tells us that a large part of this verse-ciivision was made
"inter equitandura/* while the author was on a j<mrney from
Paris to Lyons. It was preliminary to his construction of
a Greek Concordance of the New Testament, which was
completed by Henr}' Stephens and published in 1594. (See
Henry Stephens's preface to this Concordance.) Another
reason given by Robert Stephens for the division into sepa-
rated verses was, ''quxlhac ratione vtraque translatio posset
omnino e regione Gneco conte.xtui respondere" (Pref. to
N. T., 1551). The first edition of the whole Bible divided
into our present verses was Robert Stephens's edition of
the Vulgate, Geneva, 1555 ("vrii. Idvs Aprilis"). 8vo, the
division being made for his Latin Concordance, issued the
same year. This division also appears in the splendid edi-
tion of the Vulgate, accompanied in the Old Testament by
the version of Pagninus with the notes ascribed to Vatable,
and in the New Testament by that of Beza with his annota-
tions, which was printed in three folio volumes by Robert
Stephens at Geneva in 1557. This is the eighth and last
edition of the Latin Bible printed by Robert Stephens.*
The first French New Testament divided into verses was
that printed by Robert Stephens in 1552, in 2 vols, small
8vo, containing the French version of Olivetan revised by
*Sec LeLooK, Bibi. Sacra, ed. Mas^ iii. 191 ff. ; and for a very full de5CTipcion, Knock,
Hut.<rit. HmckrickUm von der Bramnxxmigixzlum Bidelsamimiumg, Guelferb. 1754, I pp.
876 89'*
466 . CRITICAL ESSAYS
Calvin, aad the Latin version o^ Erasmus, in parallel col-
umns ; the first French Bible so divided appears to be the
edition of the Genevan version printed by Robert Stephens
at Geneva, 1553, in folio.* The first Italian version, so far
as I know, which contains the verse-divisions of Stephens
was that which was made by the martyr John Louis Paschale,
and issued without plice, but perhaps at Geneva, in the year
iSSSt The first Dutch translation which has these verses
was published at Emden in 1556, 8vo, by Gell. Ctematius ;
the Dutch Bible issued at Emden in 1560, 4to, is so divided. J
The first English New Testament divided into verses was
the version of William Whittingham, printed at Geneva in
^557 J the first English Bible so divided was the Genevan
version, completed in 1560, in which the translation of the
New Testament differs widely from that of 1557. Beza fol-
lowed Stephens's division into verses, with some variations,
in the first edition of his Latin translation of the Greek Tes-
tament, published at Geneva in 1557 (this is the date at the
end of the volume ; the title-page is dated 1556), already re-
ferred to as the second volume of Robert Stephens's Latin
Bible of that year. In his first edition of the Greek New
Testament accompanied with his Latin version and notes,
Geneva, 1565, foL, and in his numerous subsequent editions,
Beza deviated much more frequently from the verse-divisions
of Robert Stephens ; and his editions had great influence
in giving currency to the use of the division into verses,
which soon became general. His variations from the divi-
sion of Stephens were largely followed by later editors, espe-
cially the Elzevirs, who also introduced others of their own.
Others still will be found in the early modern translations.
The variations of later editions of the Greek Testament
from that of Robert Stephens in respect to the division into
*See the account of these editions in Baumgarten's Xachric/Uen von tnerkw. Bikfurn,
Halle, 1752, ii. 377 ff., 379 ff-
t" Est mihi N, T. Gallico-Italicum. cditum a. 1555 ap. Giovan Luigi Paschale, quod est dis-
tinctum hodierna distinctione versuuni." Leu«len. rhilol. Hebr.-Gr., Utrecht, 1670, Diss, iii.,
§ 12, p. 21. Paschale was burned at Rome in 1560 for protestantism.
tSee Isaac LeLong, Boek-Zcutl der Seder duyt. Bybels, Amst. 1731, p. 716; cf. p. 708 seq.,
711 seq., 667 seq.
rsi:!S5
Terse!*- ire t»:»: tjXji, ?•: zlt *:? - utt iwirt. rj sjij :«: rrrc
r^nZT :c StsrtbiZi? i- frdn-rc :c :«5: vr.i:'r ii* ihi* rt^s-t "ir^t
to be rs&riici i:? iri* jEU-iiiiri fr »n ^^zr i^ *£* c ?.b:«:;LJ-
rt '•*z.: :c iTTissiisi:: 11 fLrrsrin:: t^frrj:-!^ "fiiifLzLr :■:
the ETr^irr ±:::rj:r :r :-;rr ^i^ ±riiZ :c tit Zlz.tT.r5 firiiei
LIST OF EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS EXAMINED,
IN CHRONOUHilCAL OKDKK, WITH THE AUBREVIATIONS USED.
A = 4.
1> - 37-
Al - 25.
Elz " 7.
B'»7 2.
F-- 9.
B«i and B 3.
G - 16.
Be -^ 12.
Gc
and Gen - 32, 33
Bi = 15.
II - 22.
BI = 24.
IIS - 5.
Bp - 34.
J = 38.
Br - 39.
K — 17.
Alphabetical Key to the List.
L - 21. T = 28.
Lu = 35. Th - 23.
M -^ 10. Tn — 19.
Mas =11. Tr -^ 27.
Mt =14. V = 36.
Sch = 18. W =-- 13.
Scr = 29. Wd =- 26.
St = I. We - 6.
Sz = 20. WH = 30.
Cur =- 8.
1. St: Rob. Stephanus (Estienne), N. T. Or. et Lat. 1551; Biblia, 1555, 8vo.
Where they differ, St-', St«.
2. B'^' : Theo. Bcza (de Bezc). N. T. Lat. 1557 (litle-page 1556), fol.
3. B^'': T. Be/a, N. T. Gr. ct Lit., fol., 1565, 15S2, 1588 (in many copies 15S9),
159S; 8vo, 1565. I5r>;, 15S0, 1590.
(!'.) Where these eilitions dilTcr, I have noted it; where all the editions
of J>e/a agree, incliuliivj; tlic Latin of 1557, '* B " alone is used.
4. A : The Greek N. T. in the Antwerp Polyglott, Tom. v. (1571), also Tom.
vi. (157-M, fol.
5. IIS: II. Slephaniis (l^stie ne). N. T. (ir. 1576.
6. We: l)ivin»\! Script, omnia Gr. Francofurti, ap. Andr. Wechcli herede"-",
15';7, fol.
7. HI/: I'"lzevir (ICl/.evier) eds. of 1624. n)33, 1641, 1C56, 1662, 1670, KjjS.
Where they differ, tlu- dale i-» given.
S. (.'ur: S. Curcelheus (luienni de Courcelle.s), N. T. Gr. 165S. (Other cds.,
i()75, i6vS5, 1699.)
9. I": J. Fell, Oxon 1675.
10. M: J. Mill, Oxon. 1707. fol.; also ed. L. Kustcr, Amst. and Leipzig (als)
Rotterdam), 17 10, fol.
11. Mas: (;. von Mistricht (**G. D. T. M. D."), ed. alt., 1735. (^^^ ^'^l* T'l)
12. Ik-: J. A. Bengel, 1734, 4t().
13. W: J.J. Wctstein, i75[-52, fol.
14. Mt: ('. F. Matthaei, N. T. (ir. ct Lat. 17S2-SS; N. T. Gr. 1S03-07.
Where they differ, Mt', ^^t-.
15. Bi : A. Birch, Quatuor Evan:elia, 17S8, .|to.
16. (J: J. J. Grie^bach, ed. 2 Ja, 1796-1806 (ed. maior) ; Lips. 1.805 T^'^o'*! (<^d.
minor); Vol. L, ed. tert. cur. D. Schulz, 1S27. Where they differ,
(Jtuai^ G""», G-".
VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 469
17. K: G. C. Knapp, ed. 2da, 1813; 4ta (ed. Thilo et Roediger), 1829. (Other
cds., 1797, 1824, 1840.)
18. Sch: H. A. Schott, Gr. et Lat. ed. 3tia, 1825; 4th ed., by Baumgarten-
Crusius, 1839 (Sch®). (Earlier eds., 1S05. 181 1.)
19. Tn : J. A. H. Tittmann, ed. ster. 1828, i6mo. (Other eds., 1820, i6mo ;
1824, 1831, Svo.)
20. Sz : J. M. A. Scholz, 1830-36, 4to.
21. L: C. Lachmann, ed. ster. 1831 (ed. minor; also dated 1837, 1846); ed.
maior, Gr. et Lat. 1842-50.
22. H: A. Hahn, 1840, 12110; 1S4T, in separated verses, i6mn. (Reprinted
New York, 1842, ster. ed.) Post Lachm. et Tisch. denuo diligenter
recognovit, 1861. Where the eds. differ, H*^ H^^.
23. Th: C. G. W. Theile, 1844; ed. ster. undecima, cur. Gebhardt, 1875.
Where they differ, Th«, Th"6.
24. Bl : S. T. Bloomficld, Greek Test, with English notes, 9th ed., 1855. (ist
ed., 1832.)
25. Al : H. Alford, Vols. I., II., 6th ed., 1868-71 ; Vol. III., 5th ed.. Vol. IV..
4ih ed., 1871. (ist ed., 1849-61.)
26. Wd : C. Wordsworth, Greek Testament with English notes ; Gospels, 5th
ed., 1866; Acts, 4th ed., 1864; Paul, Epp., 4th ed., 1866; Gen. Epp.
and Rev., 3d ed., 1864. (ist ed., 1856-60.)
27. Tr : S. P. Tregelles, Gr. and Lat., Parts I.-VL, 1857-72, 4to. (Part VII.
Prolegomena and Addenda, 1879.)
28. T: (L. F.) C. von Tischendorf, 1869-72; also the earlier critical eds.,
1S41, 1849, ^^S9f ^"d ^^^ manual eds. published in 1873 ^Y Tauchnitz,
Brockhaus, and Mendelssohn (ed. acad.). Where they differ, Ti*^, etc.
29. Scr: F. H. (A.) Scrivener, N. T. tcxids Stephanici A.D. 1550. Ed. auct.
et emend. Cantab. 1877.
30. WH : B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. The N. T. in the original Greek.
The text revised, etc. Cantab, and Lond. 1881. These editors now
agree uniformly with Stephens in the verse-divisions. The deviations
in a few of the earlier copies have since been corrected.
TRANSLATIONS.
31. St*^ and B^^ : See Nos. 1 and 2 above.
32. Ge: English N. T. (by W. Whittingham), Geneva, 1557. (Bagster's fac-
simile reprint, Lond. 1S42.)
33. Gen: Genevan English version of the Bible, 156©. "Ge" stands for both
" Gc " and " Gen " when they agree, as they generally do.
34. Bp: The Bishops* Bible, so called, 156S. (I have used the second edition,
Lond. 1572, fol.)
35. Lu: The German version of Luther. Goezius was unable to find any
older edition divided into verses than the one published by Feyer-
abend, Franc, on the Main, 15S2, 8vo. I have followed the divisions
in the edition of Bindseil and Niemeyer, 1854-55.
36. V : Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis, etc., Romae, 1 592, fol.
37. D : La Bibbia ; cio^, i libri del Vecchio e del Nvovo Test, traslatati da
Gio. Diodati, 1607, fol.
470 CRITICAL ESSAYS
38. J : King James's English Bible (" authorized version"), 161 1, fol. (I have
used the " Exact Reprint," Oxford, 1833, 410.)
•39. Br: II Nvovo Testamento di Jcsv Christo nostro Signore, Latino &
volgare, diligentemente tradotto dal testo Greco, & conferito con molte
altre traduttioni volgari & Latine, le traduttioni corrispodenti V vna k
I* altra, & partite per versetti. In Lyone, appresso Gaillel. Rouillio.
MDLVIII. i6mo. pp. 559, besides i blank leaf, and "Tavola
che insegna a trovar 1* Epistole & gli Evangeli delle Domeniche, e
feste deir Anno, secondo 1 1 con-uetudine della chiesa Romana,** pp. 7,
and I blank leaf. Fol. 325 gi es a special title embracing the Epp.
of Paul, the Cath. Epp., and the Apoc
I have examined fifty-one editions of the Greek Testament and nine
translations.
( ) denotes that the beginning of the verse in the edition in question is
uncertain, the verses being distinguished only by the number in the
margin. This uncertainty is frequent in the editions of Schott, Scriv-
ener, and Westcott and Hort ; and usually in such cases I have made
no reference to them.
n. signifies that an ambiguity in the text is sometimes removed by the note.
VARIATIONS IN RESPECT TO THE VERSE-DIVISION.
N.B.— I give first (from St. 1551) the words placed in different Terses in different editions,
occasionally noting various readings.
Matt. ii. I, 2 A^>ovref,
ver. 2, St B A HS We Elz^* M Bi L Al Tr T (exc. T«) Scr; Ge
Br Bp V D J.
ver. I, Elz« ^\ *', e-', 7), 78 Cur F Mas Be W Mt G (G™i°) K Sch Tn
Sz T^i H Th Bl Wd; Lu.
— v. 4, 5 'MuKapioL (A TTti'dul'i'Ttg . . . fi Maw ol Trpaelg, k. t. ?..
These verses are transposed by U«»t (contra V^^) Tr T (exc. T*^)
St^ and V. WH"'»n>' mark the transposition H h "as having a
claim to be at least provisionally associated with the true text."
L retains the former mimbering of the verses.
— ix. 23, 24 Ai}t7 ai'Toii' [/. v. *'^f /f»'],
ver. 24, St B A HS We Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt Gmin K Tn T^i
H Th Al Tr; Ge Br Bp Lu D J.
ver. 23, M Bi G'"*^ Sch L Bl Wd T (exc. T«) ; V.
— XV. 5, 6 Kal oi' urj riui/aij ruv rraripa airov ij t//v firfipa avrov ' (Various read-
ings.)
ver. 6, St A We Al Tr ; Ge Br Bp V Lu J.
ver. 5, B HS Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Bi G K Sch Tn Sz L
H Th Bl Wd T Scr ; D.
— xxi. I, 2 \f}(jji> airoiCf
ver. I, Elz*\ ■'i.
ver. 2, A/l the nst. (Br)
•[This edition was collated by Dr. Abbot subsequently (March, i83i); hence its unchrono-
logical position and numbering. The c<>py us- d belongs to Dr. Isaac H. Hall.]
VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 47 1
Matt. xxi. 25, 26 Eav ciTTutitj, ef ovpavov ' kpei 4f^iv, diari ovv ovk kTriarehaare avrift ;
ver. 26, T ; V.
ver. 25, A// the rest, (Br)
— xxiii. 13, 14 Ot'at 6k vfiiv . . .on KXeiere . , , ^* Oval vfxlv . . . on Kareffdiere . . .
So St B HS Elz Cur F Mas Be Wt«« Th (but brackets ver. 14); Ge
Br Bp Lu V D J.
w. 13, 14, are transposed by A We M W^^^g Mt Bi G (but G» ver.
14) K Sch Tn Sz H Bl Wd Scr. Of these, G K Sz H reUin
the former numbering.
ver. 14 is omitted by G^ L Al Tr T WH. Of these, L Al Tr WH
(but not T) number ver. 13 as 14.
^xxviii. 8, 9 iif c5e cTropevovro a-!Tayyei?xu roig fmd^Taig avrob,
ver. 8, St«i B^^^ A Tr n. ; Br Lu.
ver. 9. B<» HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt 6i G K Sch Tn Sz
H Th BI Al n. Wd T n. Scr; Ge Bp J. The clause is omitted
by St» G« L Al Tr T WH; V D; bracketed by Bl.
Mark iii. 19, 20 Kal ipxovrai [/. v. epxerai] Etg oIkov •
ver. 20, St A Elz^. ^'\ ">. ^s Cur F Mas Mt Bi G K Sch Tn Sz H
Th Bl Wd Tr T^^cMz \vH; Br Lu V D.
ver. 19, B HS We Elz« ^w, *i M W Be L Al T (exc. T«*"ch78).
Ge Bp J.
— vi. 27, 28 0 6e [/. V. Kn/] aTre/Muv aTreKe<^?u(jev avrbv kv ry <fn)?jaKy.
ver. 27, St B67 A Tr WH; Ge Br Bp V Lu J.
ver. 28, B» HS We Elz Cur F M M^s Be W Mt Bi G K Sch Tn
Sz L H Th Bl Al Wd T Scr; D.
— ziii. 8, 9 ^PX^^ uAivLjv Tairra.
ver. 8. St B" A Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V J.
ver. 9, B«6 HS We E'z Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Bi G K Sch Tn
Sz L H Th Bl Al Wd T; D.
Luke iv. 18, 19 Kf/pv^at [Krfpv^ai] aixf^-^Toi^ cu^aiv, koX rwfkolq avd^T^Lv^
aTToarei/Mi TEHpavtjiuvovg kv ck^^Igel^
ver. 18, Stsi B HS Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt2 G K Bl Wd Tr Scr
WH; Ge Bp Lu J.
ver. 19, St» A We M Mti Bi Sch Tn Sz L H Th Al T; Br V D.
— vi. 17, 18 Oi rjWov QKovacu avrov, Kai ictdf/x'ai clttu t(jv v6auv avrCtv'
ver. 18, St A Tr WH; Br Lu V.
ver. 17, B HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Bi G K Sch Tn
Sz L H Th Bl Al Wd T Scr; Ge Bp D J.
— vii. 18, 19 Kal 7rpo<7Ka/.ec(ifi£voc ()vo r/ydf rwy uafffnTov avrov 6 'lodwff^,
ver. 18, St" B HS Elz Cur Be Tr WH; Lu.
ver. 19, St« A We F M Mas W Mt Bi G K Sch Tn Sz L H Th
Bl Al Wd T Scr; Ge Br Bp V D J.
— X. 21, 22 Kai arpat^lg irpbg rnv^ uaBijraq, etrre,
ver. 21, St« We Cur F Mas W Bi Mt* K n. Bl Wd Tr n.
ver. 22, M Mti G^^ n. Sch n. Sz L H Th [Al] T Scr ; Gen J«»^.
Omitted ^ Stfi6 B A HS Elz Be G Sch Tn Tr WH; Ge Br Bp
Lu V D J.
— xiv. 3, 4 Ot 6f: r/ai'XfKTav.
ver. 4, St B A HS We Elz®, « Be K Tn H Th Al Tr ; Ge
Br Bp Lu V D J.
i
47t CUnCAL B8AY8
yer. 3, Eli», « ^, » Cor F If Mm ICt Bi C^ Sdi Si M Wd T.
Lake xhr. 34, 35 KaXbv rd iAof . . . '*0^ etc 7^ . . .
Els (ill edi^ons) unite ^leee two Irenes, thus dividing die chspter into
thirtyfoor Ycwes only,
— jdsL 4i» 4S A^>«iP,
Ter. 4S» SfA B A HS We Els Cor F Mas Be W Mt* K Tn H Th
Bl Al Wd Tr; Ge Bp La D J.
Ter.4i, Si« M Mt^ Bi G»^ Sch L Ss T; Br V,
•i—SodL 66, 67 Xtywnf, SI o^ d Xptar^; diri [/. v. ^irdv] iftip,
• ver. 67, St B A HS We ^s Cur F Mas Be W Q^ Q^ Uffi K Tn
Ss H«> Th Bl Wd tV Sor WH; so Br Ge La D; bat Bp J
^'ssying, ^Art thoot" etc.
▼er. 66b M Mt* Bi b^ Sch L Ifn Al T; V«
^ JodT. 45. 46 Koi elTrev avroSf,
ver. 4S. St« o«* Tr WH.
▼er. 46b Ali tki mt^ end St^ In the Lst, Br (WH).
John t 389 39 Ti CvretTf ; 02 d^ tlmw o^, Pa/9^, (d Al^eitu ^p^typnud^ieww,
▼er. 38, St B« A We Tr WH; Ge Br Bp La V D J.
▼er. 39, B^ Elz amd aU tki rat, making Ti l^f/Hln . . . ^chvic m verse
by itself, so that vv. 39-51 St «- ▼▼. 40-52 Ets, etc.
— !▼. 35, 36 i^9. T WH connect Mp with ver. 36b reading 4dy 6 depiiuv
K.T,X. So Tr«"«f .
— ' isc II, 12 AireXB^v ^ [/. v, ohi\ Koi w^^^ctvof ia4pXefa,
▼er. 12, £l2^ Be.
▼er. II, All tJki rest, Br.
Acts ii. 10, II lov6aioi re nal rrfjoo^TiVTOt,
ver. II, St A We Tr; Br Lu V D.
ver. 10, A/ltAe rest. (Tn) (WH)
— — 47, iii, I ^TTi'oavTo 61 Jlirpo^ k. r. A.
L Al Tr T", 72 {not T«, *») WH (and so St» V) join km-roavrb to
ii. 47, omitting ry tKKXrfaia, and reading in iii. i Hhpo^ de kqI
"liidwrig K. T. A. L T*i WH however retain the old numbering.
— iii. 19**20 Onu^ av FaBuol Kaipol dvailw^ea>g and it/^uttov rov Kvoiov,
ver. 20, St A We G'^ K Sch Th Tr WH ; Br Lu V.
ver. 19, All the rest,
— V. 8, 9 H Jc cIte, Noi, ToaovTov.
ver. 9, Elz («), 88, «.
ver. 8, ^//M^ resL Br (WH)
— — 39, 40 ETTtiaHt/Gcw de avriji •
ver. 39, St A G^ Sch Sz Tr WH; Br V.
ver. 40, All the rest, (WH)
— xi. 25, 26 Kal tvpijv avT^ r/yayev airrdv eig 'Xvti6x£iclv.
ver. 26, St B67 A We Tr Scr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu J.
ver. 25, B^ HS Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt G K Sch Tn Sr L H
Th Bl Al Wd T ; V D.
— xiii. 32, 33 On ravrf/v 6 Qebg UTreTr/J/puKe Tolg riKvoic avruv i)fnv, ava(rrf,an:
'Ij/oovv,
ver. 33, St B^' A We G"»i» K Sch Tn H*i Th Tr WH ; Ge Br Bp
Lu V D J.
VKRSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMEXT 473
Tcr- 32, B« HS Elx Car F M Mas Be W Mt G»^ Si L Ha Bl Al
Wd T ^kx.
Acts liiL 38, 39 Koi a-rb rrar'tti' w*- o»« ^tiT/*yr* fr rii i><ij«j Mur:^^ ^iKai4jttipHu^
vcr. 3S. St B^ A Wc G«»^ K Tr WH; Gc Br La V.
ver. 39, B«* HS Elz Cur F M Mms Be W Mt G»«i Sdi Tn Si L H
Th Bl Al Wd T Sct; Gen Bp D J.
— xviiL 12, 13 A*:o;rff,
Tcr. 12, Ez'*, *^.
Tcr. 13. All tJu rest. Br.
— TIT- 40, 41 coi ;a/? vuvdweiofuv . . . TatT^. col rmoo rirws' dr^Aityn^ -npv
Tcr. 40 icno ip . . . V«/J7ff/a: . St B«^. « ^ » » B»i«» « \v^ HS We
Elz Cur F Mas W Mt G"^ K Sch Tn Si H Th T; Lu V,
ver. 41 begins wlih the words Ka\ rai-ra in A^*^ M Be Mi^ G»» L Bl
Al Wd Tr Scr WH; Gc Bp J.
— xxiv. 2, 3 no/././;^ e'ipffiT/^ rt'} ^-di'oi'^rc ^^ ^^' «" KaTop^uudruv [/. r. cUopdlfaMui^
rur] ;. . jv^.£« j-ur ry f/h'f/ rotTw <5m n^f 0^ rrfHn'ola^^
ver. 2, St B** Tr WH; Gc Br Bp V J.
▼cr. 3, All the rest.
^ — 18, 19 Ta-ff 6'i [Ell om <?/] ard n^f 'Aa/of 'loixJoZo*,
ver. 19. St B^" A We G'^ Sch ; Br Bp Lu V D ( WH).
ver. 18, A I the rest. (WH) In St^i, « (not so Br) and B*^ ver. 19
is numbered 19, 20 or " 19 et 20"; hence vv. 21-28 St = 20-27
Elz, etc This double numbering of ver. 19 appears to have
arisen from an interpolation here in many copies of the Latin
Vu'gate. In St^ the following (marked as wanting in the Greek)
is inserted at the beginning of ver. 19: "Et apprehenderunt me,
clamantes, & dicentes, T<rfle inimicum nostril " The same inter-
polation is found in the Siztine edition of the Vulgate (1590), but
not in the Clementine (1592).
In Ge G^n ver. 18 is divided inro two, ver. 19 beginning " Neither with
m Ititude," j»o that w. 20-28 Gc etc = 19-27 J.
Rom. i. 29, 30 i'lthfttcra^^
ver. 29, St B^' A Al Tr ; Gc Br Bp Lu V J.
ver. 30, All the rest. ( W H)
— V to, 21 «t' t/.-i^i •
ver. 20, St Bi7 A We M Mt G Sch Sz L H Th« Al Tr T WH;
Ge Br Bp Lu V J. But G Sch Sz H Th'* Al Tr place a comma
after i'/-idi, and L Th** T WH have no po'nt.
ver. 21, B^ HS Elz Cur F Mas Be W K Tn Bl Wd Scr; D.
— ix. II, 12 oifK i^ fpyt^v, o''^' ifi Toi' Ko/.ovvro^,
ver. 12. St A Tr; Br Lu V.
ver. II, All the rest. (Sch. begins ver. 12 with 'Ori 6 fui^uv.) (WH)
1 Cor. vii. 33, 34 fisutfufrrai 7 )i»i'/) Kal 7 rraptilivo^. (Various readings.)
ver. 23, St^i WH; Lu.— St» A Sz Tr Br V D include fuuipitrrat
alone in ver. 33.
ver. 34, All the rest.
2 Cor. i, 6, 7 Kat ;/ l/.'xiq r/itijv 3F$aia v-zep iuuv '
ver. 7, St A We G^^^ Sch Sz WH; Ge Br Lu V J.
474 CRITICAL ESSAYS
ver. 6, All the rest,
2 Cor. ii. 10, 1 1 \va fi^ ir/^oveKTrfOofiev imb rov earava '
ver II, St B« A M Mt^ G K Sch Tn Sz L H Th Bl Al Wd Tr
T Scr \VH; Ge Br Bp Lu V J.
ver. 10, B« HS We Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt^; D. Gc (not Gen)
begins ch. ii. with i. 23, numbering i. 23, 24, as ii. i, 2, and iL 1-17
as ii. 3-19.
— — 12, 13 Oi'K kax^ii^o. aveaiv rtft nveifmrl fwv, r^t fifj evptiv fie Tirov top ddfX^dv
flOV
ver. 13, St B67 A M L Tr T Scr WH ; Ge Br Bp Lu V J.
ver. 12, B^ HS We Eiz Cur F Mas Be W Mt G K Sch Tn Sz H
Th Bl Al Wd; D.
— v. 14, 15 KpivavToc Toirro, on el c/f vrr^p irdvTuv anWavev, ipa oi travrcc
a:re:6avov.
ver. 14, St B" A We G™'" K Sch Tn H Th Tr WH; Ge Br Bp
Lu V J.
ver. 15, B«6 HS Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt G"-* Sz L Bl Al Wd
T Scr; D.
— viii. 13, 14 Ev T<^ viw Kcupif) TO vfifjv TTepiaaevua, eig to eKelvcjv wrrepfj/ia,
ver. 14, St A Tr WH; Br Lu V.— B^^ G°»* Sch Sz, and Ge Bp J,
include also in ver. 14 the words o/A' e^ ladT/rrog^ which precede
the above.
ver. 13, B^ HS We Elz T and all the rest.
— X. 4, 5 AjoyLGuoi-^ Kadaipovvre^,
ver. 4. St A Sch Tr; Br V.
ver. 5. A// the rest, ( W H )
Luther begins cap. xi. with x. 17.
— xi. 8, 9 Ka/ TTopfji' rr/)or vuhc kciI iarFpr/6el^^ ov KaTevdpKijaa ov6ev6^ '
ver. 9, St B- A We Wd Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V D J.
ver. 8. B'"^ HS Elz T and all the rest.
Gal. ii. 19, 20 XfnGToj avitnTuifUjuai.
ver. 19, St BS- A G""'^ K Tn Th Tr; Ge Br Bp Lu V.— Mt2 includes
also ia ver. 19 the words that follow: C*^ ^<, ovkiti tjtj, ^^ de kv e^iol
Xpinrin:.
ver. 20, B'-^ HS We Elz T^ and all the rest \ J (WH)
— V. 22, 23 7:i>auT//r, i),^jHiTtta'
ver. 23. St B^' A M G""» Sch Sz L H Th Al Tr T Scr WH; Ge
Br Bp V J.
ver. 22, B'-^ HS We Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt G™° K Tn Bl Wdj
Lu D.
Eph. i. 10, 1 1 iJ' nvTC).
ver. 10, St B5' A We M G™"^' Sch Sz L H Bl Al Wd Tr T Scr;
Ge Br Bp Lu V J.
ver. II, B^ HS Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt K Tn Th; D (WH).
— ii. 14, 15 Tf/i' ix^tiMW h> t7j GciJKi avTo'v'
ver. 14, St A Bi^>^ Tr WH; Br Lu V.
ver. 1 5, A/l the rest.
— iii. 17, 18 h' I'r/iiTti t /)/">/ sUWM'o/, Kal ref^tiie/.ioutvot.
ver. 17, St B^7 A Sch Th Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V J.
VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 475
ver. 18, B«» HS We Elz T and all the rest.
Phil. i. 16, 17 Oi fikv k§ epiffeiac , . . rolg deofiol^ fiov. i^ 02 6k k^ ay&wrfc . . . Ke'tfMi.
G K Sch Tn Sz L H Th Al Wd Tr T WH (and so St» V) trans^
pose w. 16 and 17, with the exception of oi //ev and ol 6i, reading
oi fi€v i^ aydirtf^, k. r. A. 17 qI 6k cf kpideiac, k, t. A. Of these, G
K V^ H Th** WH retain the old numbering.
— ii. 7, 8 Kal axVfiCLTi evpeOel^ <j^ hvdpunoq:
ver. 7, St B67 A G«^ Sch Sz Tr T (exc.*i) WH ; Ge Br Bp Lu V D.
ver. 8, B» HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt G«i» K Tn L H
T*i Th Bl Al Wd Scr ; J.
— iii. 13, 14 Iv 6k^ ra fikv dirioa eTri?xiv6av6fievo^, rolg 6k IfiirpoaBev eireKTeivdfievo^f
ver. 13, St B67 A Bl Wd Tr Scr WH ; Ge Br Bp Lu V J.
ver. 14, B<» HS We Elz T and all the rest.
Col. i. 21, 22 Nwi 6k aTTOKaTijXTia^ev [I, v, airoKaTff/i?.dyffTeJ
ver. 22, St A We Tr WH ; Br Lu V D.
ver. 21 J All the rest,
I Thess. i. 2, 3 a6ia/M7rTug
ver. 2, St A Bl Al Wd Tr WH ; Lu V. But St^i A Tr WH con-
nect the word with fivrfuovevovrec.
ver. 3, B HS We Elz T and all the rest. Br Lat. ver. 2, Ital. ver. 3.
But Ge connects the word with what precedes.
— ii. 6, 7 ^wdfuvoi kv fSdpei eivai ug Xpiaroh d:T<xrro?x)L '
ver. 7, St B57 A G^ Sch Sz Tr WH ; Ge Br Bp Lu V.
ver. 6, All the rest.
— ^ II, 12 IlapaKa?ijOvvTeg vfidq Kal napafii^jvfievoi,
ver. 12, St B5T A Tr WH ; V. So Br in the Lat., but in the Ital.
eitortato is put in ver. 11. 4 .
ver. 1 1, A/lthe rest, Bl Wd, with Ge Bp J, also include Kal fiapTvpdfJievoi
in ver. 11.
Ge includes ''as a father his children " in ver. 11.
Philem. 11, 12 0*' ovfTf/z^a •
ver. 12. St B«7,66,M w « A G""* Sch Sz Tr WH; Ge Br Bp V D J.
ver. II, B^in 06^67^8)^9) HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt K Tn
L H Th Bl Al Wd T; Lu.
— 23, 24 Md/jKof,
ver. 24, St B A HS We (see below) M Be Mt^ G»^ K Sch Sz L
H Th Al Tr T; Ge Br Bp Lu V D J.
ver. 23, Elz Cur F Mas Bl Wd.— Elz** W G^^^ Mt2 Tn Scr WH
are doubtful.
We unites vv. 18, 19, so that We w. 19-22 = St vv. 20-23. We
also unites vv. 24, 25, numbered as ver. 23.
Heb. i. I, 2 Ett* kaxdrtjv [/. v. eaxdrov] ruv tjfiepijv rovruv €?A}.ijaev rjfiiv h vi^,
ver. 2, St B57 A G™"^ Sch Sz Tr Scr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V D J.
ver. I, B« HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be Mt O^" K Sch Tn L H
Th Bl Al Wd T.
— iii. 9, 10 TeaaapdKnvra Itij
ver. 10, St A Tr WH ; Br V.
ver. 9, All the rest.
— vii. 20, 21 oi fikv yap x^Pk dpKUfwaiac e'lclv 'upeig yeyovdreg '
476 catmcAL issays
ver. 90b St B»r A We If Mt^ G>^ Sdi Ss L !!« Al TV T WH;
G# Br Bp Ijtt V D.
T«r. 8i» B« HS Ek Ciir F Mm Be W Mt* G«» K Tn H«i Th Bl
Wd Scr; J.
ver. as, St B^ A We G«it SdiTaStHAlTrScr;GeBrBpLa
V D J (WH).
Ter. sjp B» HS £32 Cor F If Mm Be W ICt G«i> K L Tk Bl
WdT.
-— ziL aa, 23 irai>9v/<^»ei
Ter. as, St B^ A We Tr; Ge ^ Bp Lq V.
i/tt. t^ i^ nS Wbt T mtd sffiHg rgtt BntBeGKLH^^TIiBlAl
T omit the comma after &yyiXu»^ nhidi they Join viUi wamryifpu,
AX indiides ml /nptAffiif, iyyikw mvtfyhpfi in ver. 23.
I Pet iL 7, 8 Kal Wof wpomtdfifmnc, ml wirfM pmMXov'
ver.8, St Bn A G"»t Sch Tn Sa H Tr ScrWH;Ge Br Bp LaVJ.
▼er. 7« B« HS We EUc Cur F M Mat Be W Mt K L Th vBl Al
Wd Tij D.
^ilL IS 16 Merd wp^itrnroc koI fdpoif,
rer, 16^ St B** A Tr; Ge Br Bp Lq V.
▼er. 15, Aii tke rnt, W^ alio includes in ver. 15 gwetffg»» <lovr«c
I Jolm iL I3p 14 Tp&f^o [/. v. It^m^] i^, inic^, hn iyvdntn t^ mripa,
vtr. 14, St B», «,«.«,« A We Tr WH; Ge Br Bp V D.
▼er. 13, B«««*» «,« » w HS Ela T amlaimUrut.
Rev. ii. 27, 28 Oc 'c^T^ eU^^ irapd rod irarpdc m^v*
▼e^. 28, St BW A G"-* Sch Sr Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V.
ver. 27, B<« HS We E'z G"**" T and aJl the rest.
— xvii. 9, 10 KoX f3nGt?^i^ iTTTO, elmv.
ver. 9, St B" A Sch Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V D.
ver. 10, A// the rest.
— xviii. 16, 17 Or£ [ua upa ijpTffiC^ 6 roaovro^ TrAovrof.
ver. 17, St B67 A We G"-* Sch Sz Tr; Ge Br Bp Lu V J.
ver. 16, B« HS Elz G«»in T and all the rest. (WH)
These, I believe, are all the instances in which Elz 1633 or T (ed. 8) differ
in the verse-division from St 1551. There are still other places in which either
some editions of the Greek N. T. (as that of Mill), or some of the early modem
translations (Ge Bp Lu J), or the Clementine Vulgate, differ from these three.
In the subjoined instances, the full-faced numerals mark the verse to which
the editions or translations named transfer the given words or phrases from
the verse in which they stand in St Elz T.
Matt 10,2.8 'IaKw/3of 6 tov 2^l3e6aiov, koi 'loxiw^f 6 aSeX^g airrov •
M V; — 20,4.5 ^* ^^ dirfABov. Scr, Ge Bp lac; — 22,41.42 Xtyuv, M G™*.
Mark 9,1-50 = 8,39.9,1-49 Lu V; — 12,14.15 dijfuv ^ fi^ Sdfiev; Ge Bp J.
Luke 1,73.74 rov Soifvai t/filv Ge J; — 9,42 = 42.48 (Et increpavit) V, and
43.44 = 44 V; — 16,22.23 ev tC) ady (om. Knl) V (et sepultus est in inferno);
— i7»35-36 = 35 V, 37 = 36.37 V. John 4»18.I4 of <J' dv my e« rov v<5arof ov
VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 477
iyci 66(rii avr^, oit fifl dc^jGr) [ /. v, -ati\ t\q rhv aiuva* V; — 6,51 = 51.52
(si quis etc.) V and 52-71 = 53-72 V; — 11,34.35 A^yowr/v avrt^i- Kvpte, ipxov
ml i(h. M Mti ;— 56.57 = 56 V; — 13.8O.31 "^ ^^ vv^ ore e^f/Jde. We M
Be Mt Th Scr.
Acts 7,55-56 = 55 V edd. Van Ess, T, but not so edd. Rom. 1592, i86x
(Vercellone) ; 57-60 = 56-59 V edd. Van Ess, T, but not edd. Rom. 1592,
1861 ; — 7»60«8,I lavAo^ Ae r/v awevdoKtJv ry avatploei avrov. V; — 8,7 =7.8
(multi autcm) V edd. Van Ess, T, and 8.9 = 9 edd. Van Ess, T, but not so edd.
Rom. 1592, 1861; — 8,19«20 rXtrpof Ae sitte Tzpbq ouroy, V; — 9,28.29 Ka* [1. v.
oni. Kai\ nappjfoiai^duevo^ kv r<p bvofiari tov Kvpiov ^lijaov [1. v. om. *lTfanv] B
HS Be Scr, Ge Bp J; — 13.8O.31 V (qui visus est per dies multos his); —
14,6.7 = 6 V, and 8-28 = 7-27 V;— 16,37.88 V (et ipsi nos eiiciant); —
24,12.18 o^'"e '"»rd rf/v tt6mv V. '
ROM 1,9.10 ndvTOTe M tuv irpoaevxi^v fwv J; — 3,25.26 €v ry avoxy tov
Oeov^ Lu J. 2 Co 13,12 = 12.18 {aairdi^ovTat, k.tX) Bp J, and 13 = 14 Bp J.
Phil 4,21.22 'Aarza^ovrai vfidg ol avv tfioX ddeX<ltoi. St*^ V. I Thess 4.II.12
= II V edd. Van Ess, T, and 13-18 = 12-17 V edd. Van Ess, T, but not
edd. Rom. 1592, 1861. 2 Thess 2.10.11 = 10 V edd. Van Ess, T, and 12-
17 = 11-16 V edd. Van Ess, T, but not edd. Rom. 159/, 1861. i Tim 6,21
= 21.22 ('H xciP'^, «. r. ?..) G"^ Sch Sz H Al Tr T*'\^ and N. T. triglott
1854. B57, « 8i^ 88^ 08 number the subscription to i Tim as 6,22. 3 John
14.15= 14 Ge Bp V J. Rev 12,18.13,1= 13,1 Lu J.
Luther begins MJt 9 with 9,2 ; 1 Con with 11, 2 ; 2 Co 2 with 1,23 (so Ge^**^);
2 Co II with 10,17; Ga/6 with 5,25; Co/ 4 with 4,2; //gd 5 with 4,14; J^ev li
with 11,3; 12 with 11,15; 13 with 12,18 (so J).
This list is incomplete, but to enter into further details would be here out
of place.
I
I. INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS.
Abbot, Ezra: traits illustrated, 184;
criticised, 249, 4M-416, 43S» 437-
Abbreviations in MSS., 140 sq., 312.
(See Manuscripts,)
Accolti, Francesco (Aretinus), 299.
Acts, Book of: 162, 168, 177, 210 so.,
217, 218, 220, 299; apocryphal, 158,
410.
Adamantius, 445.
Additions to Biblical Text, 205, 239.
Adimantus the Manichaean, 264, 26S,
278.
Advocates* Library, Catalogue of, 187.
iEon-Christ, 390, 433.
i^schylus, oldest MS. of, 211.
iEthiopic Version, 181, 212, 221, 228,
230, 231, 248, 252, 275, 276, 289, 305
sq., 310, 326-330, 357, 449.
** Alcimus," 303. (See i^ro/tv.)
Alcuin, 243, 245-247, 265, 278, 280.
Aldine edition of 15 18, 210.
Alexander of Alexandria, 258, 269,
277, 281.
Alford, Henry, 115, 119, 122, 132, 133,
179. 233, 242, 273, 274, 282, 294, 295,
30^. 313. 314. 3i7-3i9»34Q, 3Si» 352,
362, 365- 370. 396,439. 440,445. 447-
450, 457, 469.
Alternate Readings in ancient authors,
278.
Ambrose of Milan, 263, 264, 278, 303,
308 ; Pseudo-Ambrosius, 394.
Ambrosiastcr, i.e. Hilary the Deacon
(q.v.), 394.
Amnion, C. F., 399.
Ammunian Sections, 154. (See Eust'
bian Sections,)
Amphilochius of Iconium, 287, 302,
329. 392.
Ancyra Synod, 243, 247, 254, 28a
Anderson, Christopher, 176.
Antonius " Melissa," 300.
Antwerp Polyglott, 327, 468.
Apocryphal New Testament : 1 58, 160,
169; Gospels, 158, 168, 169, 410;
Acts, 158, 410; Revelations, 168,
169, 410.
Apostolic Constitutions, 115, 125, 130,
267, 297, 315, 323-325. 354, 366, 388,
409,410.
Apostolic Fathers, 127, 129, 325. (See
Fathers of the Church.)
Arabic Version : of the rolyglott, 309,
449; Erpenian, 310, 329.
Arator not Alcimus, 303.
Arians, 267, 283, 285, 313 sq., 325 sq.,
Zl'^^ 387, 405, 426, 459.
Armenian Ver.-ion, 181, 212, 221, 228,
230, 231, 252. 276, 288, 296, 312, 321,
357, 403.
Artemonius, L. M., i,€. Samuel Crell,
398.
Article, the Greek, use of, 451 sq.
Asterisks in MSS., 236.
Athanasian Creed, 153 sq., 284, 381.
Athanasius, 230, 243, 248, 259, 260,
279, 281, 2S2, 29S, 306, 310, 314, 325,
326, ;^70, 383, 388, 395.
Augustine, 264, 278, 28«, 302, 303, 304,
331. 370, 388, 394, 445.
Avia deiy of Anna, 323.
hyi'iAog of the Son, 392.
airiu, 1 13-136.
avdpuTTog, contracted in MSS., 148, 149.
aTTo after airicj, 128, 129.
a^i6u), 132.
avTo^eor. 394.
Babrius, 115, 124, 126, 130, 132.
Barnabas, Epistle of, 115, 125, 127, 129,
130, 132, 160; Acs of, 410.
Barstow, Z. S., 396.
Basil of Caesarea, 228, 234, 261, 265
sq., 277, 280, 306, 310, 384, 395.
Basil of Seleucia, 231, 247, 280.
Bauer, G. L., 399.
Baumgarten-Crusius, Ludwig Fried-
rich Otto, 132, 134, 370, 398, 399,
439, 449. 469-
Baumganen, S. J., 391.
Baumlein, W., 273.
Beatitudes, how written in Cod. Vat,
143. 145-
Beausobre and Lenfant, 134, 297, 366.
Becker's Charikles, 137.
Beda, 30S 309.
Beet, John Agar, 340, 346, 354, 404.
Belsham, Thomas, 398.
Belsheim, J., 296.
Bengel, J. A., 126, 132, 133, 188, 213,
480
CRITICAL ESSAYS
218, 222, 233, 240, 283, 307, 317, 396.
461, 468.
Benner, 396.
Benson, George, 449.
Berlin Academy, 173.
Bernard, Edward, 124.
Bemhardt's Gothic Version (f .v.), 203.
Bertheau's edition of Lucke (f .v ), 4/M,
Bertholdt*8 Einleitung, 188, 376, 464.
Bethesda (Bethzatha), the angel at,
198. 237.
Beyschiag, Willibald, 403, 449.
Beza, Theodore, 289, 396^ 409 ; his edi-
tions of the N.T, 210^ 217,234,461,
463. 465. 466. 468.
Bible, English: early versions, 289;
Whittingham's, 466; Bishops', 449^
46^ ; Geneva, 359, 449. 465. 466, 4^ ;
King James*s, 217, 227, 469; Blay-
ney*s edition, 223 sq.; "Exact Re-
print," 221, 224, 470; misprints in
editions of, 213, 224, 466; Tischen-
dorf*8 edition of the N. T^ 170 sq. ;
Greek text underlying the N. T., 204
8q.,209sq., 217 sq. ; committee for
revision of, 183, 213, 272, 273, etc,
see Retniion; German, 165, 382, 449,
458-463. 469; Greek, 140 sqq., 459,
400; Latin, 464. (See New Testa-
meni, Dutch^ German^ Latin Ver-
H<msy Old Latin^ Vulgate.)
Birch, A., 193. 296, 408, 468.
Birks, T. R., 200.
Bleek, Fried rich, 132, 329, 439.
Bloomficld, S. T., 124, 133, 135, 179,
295. 439. 448, 450. 469.
Bockeler, Otto, 139.
Boderie, Le Fevre de la, 327.
Bodleian Library, 159, 186, 327, 393.
Hoehme, C. J., 401.
Braune, Karl, 115, 132, 439, 457, 462.
Breathings, the Greek, confusion in
use of. 289.
Breslau University, 1 57.
Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb, 124, 132,
135* 372,401,405.409.449-
Breviarium Fidei, the, 309, 395.
'British and Foreign Bible Society,
Library of, 179, 220; ed. of Ae-
thiopic, 330.
British Museum: Tischendorf, 159,
161 ; Tregelles. 181 ; catalogue, 187 ;
its MSS. specially examined, 326,
327. 329. 330, 408.
Brown, David, 294.
Bruckner, B. B., 273, 457,
Brunei de Presle, 147 sq.
Bryennios's Clement, 324.
Bucer (Butzer) on Rom. ix. 5, 400.
Bueenhagen, John, (Pomeranus), 461,
463.
Bull, Bp., 371.
Ballinger, Heinrich 463.
Bonsen, C. C. J., 324, 591; his Ana-
lecta Ante-Nicaena, 253 ; his Bibd-
werk, 274, 294, 3 19^ 321, 403.
Burgon. J. W., 140-1 54* '79^ I97» 228,
238. 387-389, 392, 395. 397, 406, 407,
432-
Burtoo, Edward, 301, X2i, 322, 325,
3»6b 39o» 39if 427. 4».
Buttman's (Alex.) N. T. Grammar,
290» 364* 410. 440^ 447» 453. 454. 457-
Bmtmannn's (Ph.) Greek Testament,
^189-196. 319. 405.
P^P^, 137.
CiVLESTINE I., pope, 307, 308.
Caesarius, 262, 280, 3M.
Calvm, John, 337, 396, 42i» A^ 449^
463, 466.
Campbell, George, 1 18.
Campbell, Lewis, 404f 422, 447, 449.
Casseli's Bible Dictionary, 182.
Cassian, 308, 300, 395.
Cassiodorus, 308*
Catena of Andrea*, ipo^ 301.
Catholic Eoistles, MSS. of, 211, 217,
220; Cod. A and Cod. Sin. in, 311.
Cave, William, 252, 262, 276^ 300^ 302,
3891 394. 427.
Caylus, Count de, 139.
Chariton, lie 130.
Cheyne, T. K., 376.
Cholin, Peter, 463.
Christ : the t^ame in MSS., 205, 112 sq.,
31 5 ; appellations, 259, 266. 267, 280;
sonship, 260, 346, 348; Paul's lan-
guage concerning, 319, 365, 367,369,
374; Arian view of, 285; Sodnian
views of, 378; blood of, 324; king-
dom of, 446; force of the article
with, 386, 414. (SeeyJr^wf, y£on,)
Chrysostom, 135, 162, 228, 231, 261,
267, 269, 281. 282, 287, 298, 375, 578,
384, 387, 445; Pseudo-Chrys., 300.
"Church of God," "Church of the
Lord," 294, 312, 315, 317, 330.
Cicero, 114, 119, 120, 127.
Clarke, Samuel, 324, 400.
Clau-en, H. N., 319, 403.
Clement of Alexandria, 228, 243, 247,
2C2, 251, 268, 269, 276, 279, 281, 282,
287. 288, 323, 444.
Clement of Rome, 127, 129, 161, 171,
228, 323-325. 349» 354» 362, 410,434,
446, 447, 455-
Cobet, C. G., 349 sq., 422, 428. (See
Grcfk New Testament,)
Codex (cf. Manuscripts) : —
Cod. Aleph, 140-154, 1 59-161, 163,
164. 166-170, 179, i8t, 182, 200, 201,
211, 219. 222. 223, 225, 228. 230, 231,
23S, 240, 241, 249, 251, 268, 274, 275,
wmarn
i«a
INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS
481
283, 2S9. 290, 305; agreement of
with B in questionable readings,
310, 311, 315, 316, 323, 346, 407,408,
432, 475. (Sc Cod. FrideriiO-Au^s-
ianushtXovn,)
Cud. Alexandrinus (A). 128, 129, 146,
161. 16'', 170, 182, 1S9, 194,211, 224,
250, 268, 27?, 283, 290, 295, 305, 311,
346, 357, 4o6-40ii, 432, 430-
Cod. Amiatinus, date of, 165, 177.
Cod. Augiensis (F), 163, 174, 177,
182, 218, 291, 316. 346, 407.
Cod. B (Vaticanus), 140-154, 160,
161, 163, 167, 1C8, 170. 178, 180^
182, 189; collations of, 193 sq., 200,
21 1, 222, 223, 225, 228, 230, 231, 238,
240, 241, 249, 250, 251, 268, 274, 275,
283, 280, 291, 295, 305, 307 ; agree-
mei.t of with Aleph in question ble
readings, 310, 3i».3'5» 3A 323* 346.
407, 408, 432, 435-
Cod. B of in* Apocalypse, 160, 161.
Cod. Bezae (D or Cantabrigiensis),
I49» 163, 182, 210, 211, 217, 218, 228,
230, 231, 236, 238, 240. 275, 289, 290,
295* 296, 305, 309, 311, 316, 346.
C' d. Hobbieiisis, 160.
Cod. Brixianus, 228, 22^
Cod. C (Cod. Ephiaemi, the Parisian
palimpsest). 142, 146, 157, 160, 167,
200, 211, 229, 231, 238. 240, 249, 250,
251, 268, 274. 275, 288, 295. 309, 31 1,
316, 346,407,408,432.
Cod. Chisianus, 167.
Cod. Claromonfanus, 157, 160, 177,
178, 182, 210, 212, 407.
Cod. A, 151, 240, 250, 268, 275, 283,
280.
Coci. E, 145, 177, 211, 229, 250, 268,
274, 275, 288, 295, 296, 305. 311. 316.
Cod. E of the Acts (Cod. Laudi-
anus), 145, 162, 296.
Cod. F (K od. Boreeli), 160, 250, 268,
274, 2S8, 292.
Cod. t, see Cod. Brixianus.
Cod. Friderico- Augustan us, 141. 159,
160, 167. (See Cod. Aiephy^iiovt.)
Cod. P'uldepsis, 165.
Cod. G, 151, 177, 26S, 274, 2S8, 316,
346, .J07.
Cod. r, 177, 274. 275, 288.
Cod H ot the Gospels, 250, 268, 274,
27;, 28 S 291. 292.
Cod. H of the Acts, 177, 309, 316.
Cod. H of the Epistles, 212.
Cod. I, 177, 250.
Cod. K of the Gospels, 157, 177, 250,
26S, 274, 288.
Cod. K of the Epistles, 316, 346, 407.
Cod. L of the Gospels, 151, 157, 160,
200, 210, 217, 228, 230,231, 240, 249,
250, 268, 274, 275, 283, 289, 291.
Cod. L of the Acts and Epistles, 177,
309. 3»<J» 346, 407, 408, 432-
Cod. A, 177, 250, 268, 274, 275, 288,
289.
Cod. M, 157, 177, 250, 268, 274, 288.
Cod. Marchalianus, 162.
Cod. N, 160, 212.
Cod. P (P. rfiiianus), 162, 212, 275,
289, 291. 309, 316.
Cod. n, 274, 275, 288.
Cod. Q, 162, 210, 211.
Cod. R, 162, 177, 178. 212
Cod. Ros^anensis, 221, 238.
Cod. S, 250. 268, 274, 288.
Cod. Sarravianu*! of the Octateuch,
162.
Cod. Sinaiticus, see Cod. Aleph and
Cod. Friderico- Attgtistanus.
Cod. T, 200, 211, 228, 275.
Cod 6, 160.
Cod. U, 177, 2 w, 268, 274, 275, 288.
Cod. V, 250, 268, 274, 275.
Cod. Vaticanus, s<»e Cod. B.
Cod. W*, 160; WS 162.
Cod. X, 177, 250, 268, 275. 289.
Cod. Y, 160.
Cod. Z (the Dublin palimpsest), 177,
178, 212, 230, 231, 238, 240.
Cod. Zacynthius, 141, 163, 178, 220,
230.
Cod. 1, 250, 268, 289.
Cod. 8S (*>. Acts 13, Pauline Epp.
17), 178, 230, 249, 250, 268, 274, 275,
283, 292, 296.
Cod. 69, 250, 268, 283, 287, 289, 291.
Cod. 234 (Acts 57, Paul 72), 292.
(See Manuscripts^ Criticism^ Lection-
arieSf etc.)
Colenso, Bp. J. W., 403.
Communicatio Idiomatum, 315.
Compluttnsian Polvglott, 210, 217.
Concordances, Bib ical, 465, 467. (See
Englishman's, Nathan^ Trommius^
Youngs etc.)
Constaniine the Grea% 142, 269.
Conybeare (W. J ) and Howson (J. S.),
132. 385. 439» 449
Cook, Canon, 411. 432.
Coptic Version, 212,221, 252,268,269,
275, 276, 296, 357, 449- (^ee Egyp-
tian Verstons.)
Copyists, 140-150, 151, 161,205,222,
227, 229. (See Manuscripts.)
Coquerel, Athanase, 403.
Councils: Antioch, 388; Carthage,
304; Chalcedon, 3S1 ; Constantino-
ple^. 377. 381 ; Diamper, 329; Ephe-
sus, 308, 381; Lateran, 32'3; Nice,
300, 371. 377» 381. 382* 388. (See
Synod.)
Cowpcr. B. Harris, 171.
Cozza, Father, 181, 408.
482
CRITICAL ESSAYS
Cramer's Catenx, 262, 266. 26S, 29S,
295. 299. 307. 392. 393-
Crell, John, ^76, 397, 409.
Crell, Samuel, **L. M. Artemonias,**
398.
Cremer, Hermann, 425, 445.
Criticism, New Testament: opinions
in England, 179 ; scholars there, 213 ;
aids in, 217 sq.; pnnciples of and
their apulicatiun, 222 sq., 239 sq.,
323. (Cf. Glosses^ Manuscripts^ Pcue-
Of^aphy, etc.)
Crombie, 42S.
Cro-bv, Howard, 135.
Crowfoot, 276.
Cruciger (Creutziger), Kaspar, 463.
Ctematiu^, Gell., 466.
Curcellaeus (Courcelles, £tienne de),
400, 468.
Cureton, W., 321, 322; Curetonian
Syriac Version, 212, 221, 228, 231,
236, 252, 268, 269, 276.
Cyprian, 228, 238, 304, 394.
Cyril of Alexandria, 228, 230, 243,
245, 247, 254, 260, 262, 265, 266, 268,
276, 277, 281, 287, 288, 292, 293,306,
31 ^ 323. 34 5» 346. 370, 384, 387, 392,
414; Pseudo-C> ril, 261, 268, 277,
300.
Cyril of Jerusalem, 260, 277, 279, 387.
/cat: contracted in MSS., 149; article
omitted after, 452.
Kara and fitrd confounded in MSS.,
42S; Kara ^foj-, 42S ; Kura Tzvtiun,
34>S; mra o6f)K(i, 332-350, 3S4, 390,
392. 393-
KipKHj, 136, 37S sq.; distinguished
from (-in,r, 425 sq, ; in Paul's quota-
tions, 426; K> fxot; and o Ki'f)iog, 439;
Kijunr rCjf Kifjiuv, 429. (See Lord.)
Xdfur, 362.
XpiCTog and 6 i/^f^rd*;, 351, 378, 386,
414.
ATf {Xl'((^'<^^), 149-
Daille, Jean, 240.
Daniel, Book of, 162, 167, 182.
Darby, John Nelson, 297, 366.
Davidson, Samuel, 179, 182, 186, 233,
273, 294, 295, 307, 308, 310, 319,
366, 404, 449, 462.
De la Rue, 247, 265, 278, 279, 2S6, 287,
301, 310. 389, 4 28, 448.
Delitzsch, Franz, 172.
Demosthenes, 432.
D t' Rossi, 214.
DiTUS, 320 sqq., 372, 378, 394, 400.
(Ste (hog.)
Devil, 286-293 /<2Jj-/w.
De Wette, W. M. L., 132, 133, 188,
233. 273» '95' 319. 35'. 352.370,398,
399. 402, 4 5, 409, 439, 447.449» 457.
462. 464.
Didot, Firmin, 157.
Didvmus, 248, 254, 268, 276, 281, 2S8,
289, 29S.
Dillmann's Aethiop. Lexicon, 306.
Dindorf, William, 124, 173, 3pS, 390.
Diodati, John (Gio.), 469.
Diodorus of Antioch and Tarsus, 392,
393.
Diognetus, Epistle to, 127, 129.
Dion Cassius, 172.
Dionysius of Alexandria, 3S8, 428;
Pseudo-Di nysius, 388.
DionyAiu^of Halicarnassus, 456.
D'osco id»s, 152.
** Dittography,*^ 436. (See Hamao-
Uleuion. '
Doctrtna Orientaiis, 253.
Doctrine, Christian, its disclosure
progressive, 374 sq.
Doddridge, Philip, 398.
Doederlein, J. C, 297, 366.
Doederlein*s (Ludwig) Latin S3mo-
nyms, 119, 127.
Donaldson, Jamts, 324.
Dorner, Isaac August, 324, 39S.
Doxolo^ies, 351, 354, 355, 308 sq.;
Rabbinical use o% 302, 303, 380,
384. 397. 405. 406. 410. 417. 437-
Drumm aid, James, 254, 266, 273, 278,
282.
Drusius, Johsmnes, 426.
Dublin Pa'impsest, see CW. Z.
Ducaeus, (Fronton le Due). 300.
Du Pin (Dupin), Louis Ellies, 310.
Dureau de la Malle, 139.
Diisterdieck, Friedricii, 1 14, 119, 457.
Dutch Translation, 170, 184, 274, 294,
404,466. {See Bi'd/e.)
Dwight, Timothy, 332, 339, 340, 342,
343. 350» 359. 361. 396, 406, 421, 422.
Acu'tid, contracted in MSS., 149.
deouat, 123, 125, 1 32 sq.
(5/a in reference to Christ, 369.
do^a in doxologies, 362.
Eadie, John, 132, 370, 439.
Ebioniics, 374.
Ebrard, Johann Heinrich August, 462.
Eckermann, J. C. R., 401, 405.
Egyi^tian Versions, 212, 276. (See
Coptic, Mcmphitic^ Stthidic, Thebaic)
Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, 1S8, 296.
Ekker, 324.
Ellicott, Bp. Charles John, 124, 132,
3i9» 35^' 439» 44°, 442-445. 447. 448,
457-
Eisner, Jakob, 456.
Ely Lectures, 362, 777, 385.
Elzevir Editions, 189, 190, 192, 466 sq.
EncvciQivX'dia Britannica, 137.
Englishman's Concordance (Greek;
Hebrew). 177, 461;.
Ephraen\ th- Syrian, 328, 329.
INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS
483
Epiphanius. 231. 242, 243, 247, 2^3-255,
267. 268, 276, 277, 279, 280, 281, 288,
306, 384, 391, 393.
Erasmus: his critical apparatus, 217,
340, 353. 366, 397-400, 409, 427, 449.
45'. 45'*. 459. 465. 466; his fdi-
tioas, 2(o, 217, 218, 234, 289; his
Paraphrase, 297.
Erisuco, see Miniscnlchi-Erizzo,
Emesti, H. F. T. L., 400, 449.
Ernesti, J. A., 370.
Ersch and Gru^er's Cyclopaedia, 138.
Esdras, Book^ of, 147.
Estienne, see Stephens.
Estius (Van Est), Gulielmus, 396.
Esther, Book of, 167, 352.
Eternal Generation, 267.
"Eucherius," see Euthcrius.
EuIogiu>, 395.
Eunomius 247, 256, 257, 267, 277.
Euripides, 172, 211.
"Eusebian Sections," 141. (See Am-
monian Sections.)
Eusebius, 142, 151, 177, 228, 230, 243,
246, 247, 255. 25S, 259, 265, 268, 269,
277-279. 281, 282. 284, 302, 370, 390,
395' 4''8.
Eustathius, 259, 268, 269, 277, 287, 301,
^ 329. 395- ,
Euthaliu^, 296, 300.
Eutherius ot Tyana, 301, 329.
Euthymius (Zigabenus or Zygadenus),
135, 260, 262, 268, 277. 287.
Evangelistaries, 220, 288. (See Mantis
scripts.)
Evangelium Palatinum, 160. (See
Latin Versions.)
Ewald, Heinrich, 132, 133, 273, 294,
3*2, 319. 376, 422, 439, 447, 449, 457.
"Exact Reprint,*' see Bible, English.
Excerpta Theodoti, 243, 253, 269.
Exodus, Book of, 147.
"Expo-^itor, The,"3ss, 396.
Ezra. Book of, 147.
£^v in a passage in Suidas, 124.
«*>, 355. 410, 423.
fi///: force of, 383; dvm im^ 351;
iGTiv in doxologies, 355, 410, 423;
iari^ in doxologies, 355, 409, 410, 423.
fi' in reference to Christ, 369; kvvK^,
453-
fT/<kiv«a, 441, 446, 454-456.
epuTdu, I 13-136.
iaravpujftr] contracted in Cod. Sin., 149.
ivayye?J(^e(TBat in Paulas quotations, 426.
ev7j)yi]fikvo^i position of in d >xologies,
3^1, 358, 436; distinguished from
tv}A)y7)T6c, 409 sq.
et'P.oy^rof : position of in doxologies,
151, 380, 384, 3S5, 391 ; distinguished
from evAoyj/uivoi; 409, 410, 436;
senses of, 437 sq. ; o ev2/}yifT6^ esp.
u«ed of God, 362.
tvxapiOTcj, 362.
Faber Stapulensis, J. (Jacques Le
Fevre d'Etaplc*). 464, 465.
Fabricius, J. A., 187, 253, 267, 391.
Facundus, Hermi^nensis, 302, 2^-
Fairbaira, Patrick, 449.
" Faith " in Heb. x. 23, A. V., 226.
Farrar, Canon, 352, 355. 396, 450, 457.
Fatherhood of God (^.v.), 271, 371,
372. 374-
Fathers of the Church, 170, 276, 297-
305, 313, 329; as interpreters of
Scripture, 248, 251, 255, 3S7, 393,
445; thf-ir theo ogical language, 315,
322, 323, 320-^26, 352, 371, 375, 383,
386, 401. (See Apostolic, Greek,
Latin.)
Faustinus, 264, 278.
Faustus R»-jensis, 308.
Fell, John, 468.
Ferrandus, 247, 267, 308. 395.
Ferrar, Prof. W. H., 275.
Ferrari, Ambrose, 265, 278.
Field, Frederick, 298.
Finetti, 299, 307.
Flacius lUyricus, 421.
Flatt. 337, 396, 398, 439, 450.
Fleury, Claude, 324.
Forsier, 463.
Franz's El em. Epigr. Graec, 289, 290.
Fratres Poloni, 396.
Frederick AuErustu-' II. of Saxony, 159.
Fritzsche, C. F. A., 352, 354, 355, 358,
362, 376, 402, 409, 422, 437, 447, 449.
456-
Fritz>che, O. F., 16S, 319, 356, 455.
Fronto Ducaeus (Due, Fronton le),
300.
Fulgentius, 243, 247, 257, 278, 279, 308,
309, 39 s : Pseudo-Fulgentius, 310.
Funk, F.X., 324.
Gage, William L., 170.
Gallandi, Andrew, his Bibliotheca re-
ferred to, 257, 259, 260, 262, 264,
277, 288, -x^i, 302.
Garnier, Julien, his edition of Basil,
266, 280, 310.
Gaudentius, 247, 267, 280.
Gebhardt, Oscar von, 166, 324, 325,
469.
Gelasiu<» of Cyzicus, 301, 395.
G nnadius 387.
Greoffrey of Monmouth, 186.
Georgian Version, 288, 289, 309, 357.
Georgius Trapezuntius, 256.
German Versions, see Bible, Luther,
SwisSs etc.
Germanus, 277.
484
Geseniu*, Wilhelm, 176, iS:, 376.
Oe«, W. t\ JJ5, 37i, 383, 3S3, 385,
449. 45"^ 4S7-
Girford, Edward Hamilton, 337, 338,
J47. J6l. 396, 406. 411, 41*. 414. 41s.
434-4J'i-
CigJl Litrorum, 296.
Gmiliurg, Chrisliaii D., 376.
Cloag. P.ton J , 294.
Glikklcr, Cunrad. 401.
Glosiei, aift 235, i?^.
Gnoilicism, 321. 445; GiiDSiics, iheir
views of Gud, 390. 433.
Goailby, Roljert, 39a.
Godi wirtd nf, 20s. 367-169, 400; only-
begoiien fg.v.), 241-285; church of,
^4i 3071 jii. 3-7; " flesh of ,"" Imdy
of," 522. 3; 5, 326; "blood of," 314,
3io-'3;6.323i 3u(fcring,3is,32o,32z,
323,3:;; ■■de.thof,"(;c.,3i2; over-
"•liilS. 353. 35+: rank. 366; name,
374. 37a. jSo. 40i. (See C*ritr,
D,iti,Jtsui, Lord. Unigtnitus Diui,
Hl.if, .l,.,..r.)
God the Son, 267, 2S2. (See Chrin.)
Godei, v., 133. 273, 382. 396, 414-
Godwin, John II., 319, 404, 447.
Gooding, Alfred. 405.
Gospels: Apucrj-|ihnl (^.r.) ; Tischen-
dorf's Itirmony uf, lOO; date, 169;
in the New Revii-ion. 2ts-i40; par-
allel passages, 231;, 236, 23S; quota-
tions in, 330, 23 1.
Gothic Version, editions of, 135. 203.
Gregory Nutia
163, ^67-^69, 277; =5s 2si; pj j.^
Gregory of N>-ssa, 241. 247, ^jj-rj:.
i&i, 276, 277, 279. 2&0. 329. 370. 3!'4.
395-
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 301.
Gricsbach, John James; ,% a crilic,
179,200; hi, Greek Tesla-oent. rS^
19;. i\i, 2/3. 318. 2J2, 233. 24.. i^
^ 333. J05. TO7. 30S. 46S.
Grimm. C. X-. Willibald, 396, 400, 455;
his Lexicon. 124, 351. 356, 36S, 384.
4=9, 437-
Groismann. C. G. L.. 15S, (72.
Gfotiui. Hugo, 132, 134, 3S9, 370. 397.
4S7. 449.4S7■
Gut]cher, Rudolph, 463.
Gucricke, H. E. F„ i83, 14S.
Guhl and Koner, 137—130.
Guiioi, F. P. G., :s7.
Gutbier, Aegidius. 327.
Hahn. August, 39S, 405, 469; his
Greek New Testament, 190, 447.
Hahn, G. U, 405.
Haldane, Robert, 405.
Greek fathers, 241, 244-246, 257, 267,
sCkS, 277, :S6. 2S7. 3<^>- 3'3. 3M. 39'.
31J5. (Ste Fathtrs, A[vstalic, L,Uin.\
Greek Ni.-w Te^tnmenl : Kutimann's
\,q.v.), 1S9 s(i<i.i Hahn's (./.:-.), 190;
Stier and Theile's, 190; Theilu's,
190; ItagMcr's " I.irgc-I'rini," igi ;
Grieab.ie I's (^.:'.), 190, 204 siiq., .Sji ;
Tischendorf's (-/.:■.) work, iljo-174 ;
"Catholic editiim." 157 : O. v. Gcb-
hardl's \,q.v.\, 166; criticism, t75;
El^ievir, rS9, i'>i. 195; editions
of, 161;, 176, 177. 1^5. 210 sq., ?77,
3S4, 4'W, 46';; principles. 179;
G. D. T. M. IJ.'s edition, 1.S4. 18?.
rS7i WcMc.iU :.nd Ho.t's (./..'.).
197-20;; Kuenen :ind CobcCs (y.i'.t,
291. ,ii'f. 350. ■\°i- 447; Green's
T«..fuia New Testament, 273; umi>-
si..n. 31,; ver-es. 464-467; " Kf
cciveil Te.'it." 165, i6fi, J76, 177. 1.S9,
19-:. T95, 197. 21 1 sqi]., 216, 220, 230
sq.j.. 235, J37. 2')4. (See under the
Green, Samuel G., 4JO.
29-l.'3i3.3'"''. 44", 4P.'-153-
c H., 184 sqq.,
K. L. F.. i^i:
Har
. 162.
Harless, G. C. A. von, 132, 400.
Hirmsen, Krn.st. 396.
Harnick. Ad..l', 315.
Harlo', J. (ed. of Cyprian), 304.
Harvard College Library, 162. 184,40s.
Harvcv, Wigan, 435.
H..i.(>t. Erich, 457.
Haym.). 445.
Heiriie, Thomas, his edition of Cod.
Uudiaiius {q.v.\, 162.
ITS^'k;^. 356 357 ; MSS,
15?
Di. Tregeiles'said
s m
Hdirev;
slu'i
V, 176; Hebrew
Teic
of the
Kl;v
Hel.rL
Hefel
wsEpisiletoihe.
447. (See Indtx
S9.
■fiiffl
'r|.vo„,3...
hen. i-. A,. 390.
chs, J, 11., 370, 449.
Helio
orus^455-
HvlU
^^"^■i
!ciil>erg, Ernst W
ilhelm, 273,
\-
i». .r., '-T-
160
s, ns, 125, 127. 1
^9.
30. '3=.
\\>^-!Z.
e'> Encyclopxdia, j
76. 464.
INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND CREEK WORDS
485
Hcyse, Theodor, 172.
Hilary (Hilarius), 243, 247, 24S, 263,
264', 268, 276. 277, 282, 384. 394, 395.
Hilary, the Deacon, 277, 302. (bee
Ambrosiaster.)
Hilgenfeld, Adolf, 115, 130, 165, 169,
188, 324, 356, 396.
Hippolytus, 25S, 26S, 269, 277, 282,
32 1 » 323. 324* 378, 383* 390. 39 1 » 4^8,
444.
Uirt, J. F., 396.
Hitzig, Ferdinand, 376.
Hodge. Charles, 337. 342, 396, 421.
Hoeppc, H., see MiilUr.
Hoeschel, David, 265, 278.
Hofmann, J. C. K. von, 378, 382, 396.
Holsten, C, 404.
Holtzmann, H. J., 273, 274, 294, 319,
403, 449. 457.
Holy Spirit: the "Helper," 133 sq. ;
deity of, 42S, 429.
Holznausen, F. A., 439.
Homoeoieleuton, 205. 206, 223, 229,
234, 436-
Home's Introduction, 180, 182, 241 ff. ;
Biblical Bibliography, 185, 186.
Hort, F. J. A., 154, 174,- 179, 197-203
^"^"S^ 233, 272, 276, 294, 295, 319, 353,
366, 405, 422, 447, 469. (See West-
cot t.)
Huct, Pierre Daniel. 265, 278, 279, 287.
Hug, Johann Leonhard, 188, 327.
Hugenholtz, H. J. de Haan, 135.
Humb)idt, Alexander von, 180.
Humphry, William G., 326.
Hupfeld, Hermann, 123.
Huther's Commentaries, 132, 319, 364,
402, 447, 449, 450, 4^7, 462.
Hyperide^, Babington s, 143.
Ibas. 302.
Idacius (Idatius) Clarus, 264, 268.
Ignatius, 279, 321. 322, 324, 390, 396,
444; Ignacian Writings, 127, 129,
131, 132, 267, 279. 2S7, 321, 390, 396.
Immer, Prof. A., 449.
Indicative, the, in doxologies, 355, 409.
Irenaus. 243, 247, 254, 257, 258, 268,
269, 277, 279, 28 1, D^i, 296, 297, 313,
7>'^\ 324. 349. Z^l^ 390. 39 1 » 433. 434*
435-
IrmJ^ch's Herod an, 428.
Isidorus (Isidore) ot Pelusium, 247,
279» 300» Z^l-
Isocrates, 432.
*ltpovaa/JipL^ abbreviated in MSS., 147
sqq.
Jva, 123, 128, 130, 131.
laa, 368.
'lapaif/^ abbreviated in MSS., 148, 149.
Jackson, John, of Leicester, 398, 40a
Jackson, S. M., 408.
Jackson, William, 440, 444.
Jacobitz and Seiier's Greek Lexicon,
M7-
Jacobson's Patres Apostolicty XTj^ 325.
Jahn, Johann, 464.
Jansenistb, Trcgelies on the, 182.
{atho, G. F., 396.
eromc, 263, 264, 277, 298, 302, 303,
308, 313, 395.426.
Jesus: h'.s pray« r, 114; traditional
payings ascribed to, 236; to confess
him as the Christ, 376. (See Christy
God^ Mt'SSiaAy Umr^ sipior.)
Jews: Greek-speaking, 116; unbeliev-
ing and Christian, 333; Messiai ic
hopes of, 353, 355; altitude towards
doctrine ot the Trinity, 374, 37 q;
privileges, 413, 415-422; Gnostic
view of their God, 433.
John, Acts of, 410.
John H., pope, 308, 309.
John of Damascus, 231, 262, 26S, 277,
388.
John the Evangelist, 121-123, 132, 280,
377; his Gospel: logos (i^.z^.), 255;
paraphrase, 261 ; Commentaries,
273* 301 ; translation, 276; Origen,
278; Chrysostom, ^06; proem, 283,
Jonas, Justus, 463.
Jones, John, 398.
Josephus, 115, 124, 125, 127, 130, 132,
354. 454-
Joshua : Book of, 147, 149 ; prayer of,
124.
Jowett, Benjamin, 319, 403, 404, 422,
447.
Julian the Aposta.e, 243, 260, 266, 26S,
277. 346. 392.
{ulianus Pomerius, 308.
unilius, 265, 268, 278, 281.
Junius, Patri' ius see Kw//f, Patrick.
Justi, L. J. C, 399.
Justin Mart>r, 164, 230, 352, 375, 428.
Kahnis, K. F. a., 382.
Kave, Bp. John, 372.
Kcble, John, 435.
Keil, J. K. F,'233, 455.464-
Kennedy, Benjamin Hall, 335, 362,368,
yn^ 385. 41 1-4 M. 422,423, 428, 433,
447-
Kettner, F. E., 463.
" King of the Ages,'* 354.
KirchofTs Corpus Inser. Attic, 290.
Kitto's Cyclopaedia, 273, 464, Jfoumal
of Sacred Literature, 179, 182.
Klauscn, If. N., see Clausen,
Klce, lleinrich, 396.
K I of u tar, 396.
Klopper, A. H. E., 447.
CRITICAL KSSAVS
Knapp, G. C, i 56, 190, 370. 469-
Kniltel, F. A., .15S, 459.
Knubel. Auguai, 376.
Kofllner, E luard, 360, 401.
Koncr, see Guii ami Koiur.
Koppc, Johann Benjimin, 396, 399.
Krebs,/. T-, 127.
Krehl. A. L. G., Ap2, 405, 44^
Kriiger, K. W., 344.
Kueiien, see Grrei New TfilamttU.
Kiihner, Rafael, 409.
Kuinoel, C. T„
«»r,
Liturgies, ancient. 238, 354, 35S, 359,
382. 409'
Locke, John, 399, 421.
Loesner, C. F., 127,
Logos, iis. 3S4, 314,315.364.3651 370.
375-377.391.429.43'- (SeeCiriU,
JaMa. iVord, 'oy^.)
Lommatzsch's Origen, see Origm.
Lord: use o( the word, =05; thnitb
<?.p.) of, 302, 304, 313, 314 ; o..e, 378-
3S0, 3b4 ; nime, 426. (Sec Cirid,
'a(Ludol.)h)Mil1. 468.
La Cava >tS., see l^uSgatt.
Lachmann, C, 15!), 1(14, 139-194, 212,
213, j[8, 233, 241. 27^. 294. =97. 319.
362.366,405. V-'- 43*469'
La Cioze's Hisi. of Christ, in India,
3^9- .
Lactanlius, 315, 323.
Laemmer'a Eusebius, 390.
Lagarde, P. A. de, 16N, 297, 388.
Lampe, Fried rich Ailolf. 133.
Lame, J. I'., 115, 273. 294. 361, 396,
439. 450. 462.
Laodiceans. Epislle to the, 304. 330.
Lardner. Naihaniel. 322.
Larousse's Diiiionary, 1S6.
Latin Fathers, 2z8, 13T, 241, 244,
246, 257, 262. 265. 267, 168,376.177,
281, 2SS. 296. 302, jHO, 394. 395.
(Bee Apettolic F.ithcri, Grni.)
Latin Versions 165. 252. 277. 297.357.
395. 463. 4- J. (See BM; New lis-
lameal, Vuijpite, Old Latin.)
Law, Edmund, 39.S.
Lechler, G. V,. 294, 405.
Le Clerc J. (Cieticus, Joannes), 132,
134.373.396.-127,449
Lecii
2, 407. ^
U Long. Isa.i-, 4(16.
Le I-ong, J. led, Mssch). 1S8, 465.
X^ Maoul and Oecaisnc's Botany, 138.
Lenfani, Jacques, see Beause&re and
Lcn/,iHt.
Lenecnfeld, 155.
Leo Jndae. 463.
Leontiusof llyianlium, 395.
Lep'ius V. R,, [73.
Leironne. [47.
I^uKdeii and H haaf's Peshilo, see
Sviac y.rsions.
Lirfdon's Hampton lectures, [[7,
Liddcll and Sti.tl's Lexicon. 137.
Lightfoot, Hp. J. »., irq. 213,272, 276,
^■■ij. 3"9. 3^4. 3=5. 330. yio.Aio, 447.
4iS-
Lilienthal, iW.. 396.
Limhnrch, I'hilip van, 297, 36C, 396,
Linn.tiis, Carl, 1 ^S, 739,
Lipsius, K. A., 319. 3:2. 3:4. 403-
457. 402-
Luke the Evangelist, 320; his Gosp*!,
words, 132; Sinai ic MS- 150; pa-
limpseat, i6z; mutila-ion», 170;
842; verses, 179: h mns,z2o; oj.is-
•ions, Z34; on ' ei'v of Christ, J46.
Lumper, Gotif lied. 427.
Lulhardi, C. E., 450.
Luther's Gcrnun Bible, see Bible.
Lykurgos, 173
Lyser, Polycarp. 460.
MUu distinguished from ?j7«, 123.
y>iya, i.(}. m>.ci-u, IJ3; distinguisbcd
from '/.aJio, 1 23.
Urn. 6, 37S. 377. 4'2; as distin-
guished from 01 ?jjji)i, 325. (See
Lq^.)
Macarius -Egyitius, zSS.
Maccaljees, Hooks of the, 144. i6S.
Macknight, James. 397. 449.
Mai. Angelo, 161, 171. 356, 261, 262.
266,277,300.304,330, 331.
Maier. Adaiberi.396.
Malan, S, C. 276, 2S9.
Malle, Dureaude la (j .f .).
Manjey, Thomas, 171.369, (See /»*»/#
0/ Alrxaitdria.)
Manichaeans, 277, 287, 2S3, 393, 433.
Irfanuscripls ; 160, 177, 17S, iSl, z.o,
117, :iS, 222. 292, 3121 marks of
antiquity in. 140 sqq., l6oj chapier-
di-isi-ms in. I4r sq.. 143. '47, 14S;
dots ir. 146, 148; initial letters in.
146, t4S; con'raeii.iiis in, 14S aq.;
chifogra|ihy of, 152, 153; punctua-
INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS
487
305; palimpsest (^.v.); on papyrus,
147, 161 ; Herculanean papvri, 143,
147, 149, 152, 15^, 21 1 ; ihe burdett-
Coutts, 295; Egyptian, 269, 275,
2S1; Hebrew, 214; Latin, 316, 331 ;
Freisinj^ Old Lat. fragm, 330 ; Ori-
ental, 159, 330; of the Sepr., 162;
of versionn from iho Sept., 357;
Syriac (^.w.)i 159. S^o* 327. 3^9 i
cursive, 177, 180, 212, 219-221, 250,
275, 2S8, 292, 309, 311, 312, 316,346,
35', 406-408, 432; u .cial, 158, 17^,
177. 218-221, 228-231, 233, 236, 238,
250, 268, 292, 295. 305. 312, 407, 432.
(bee Codex^ Copyists^ Lectionartes^
PaUoj^aphy^ Palimpsest^ etc)
Marcion, 170, 322.
Marcker, 400.
Marginal Notes, see Glosses,
Marius Mercator, 395.
Mark's Gospel: last twelve verses,
140 ff., 150-154, 195; Gothic, 203;
text of, 231, 240; on deity of Christ,
346.
Marquardt's Alterthiimer, 138.
Marsh's Michael is, 1S6, 1S8, 327, 461.
Martin I., pop»-, 308.
Mariini, Antonio, 324, 428.
Mas^ h, A. G., see Le Long^J.
Massoretes, verses, etc., see Old Testa-
ment.
Massmann, H. F., 135. (See Gothic
Version.)
Massuet's Irenaeus {q.v.)^ 435.
Mastricht, Gerhard von, see Von Mas-
tricht.
Matthaei, C. F., 218, 222, 262, 766, 279,
280, 287, 295, 29S, 316, 3S9, 407, 427,
468.
Matthew's Gospel: genealogy, 145;
Tregelles, 180; original language,
1S2; Buttmann, 191, 192, 19^; MS.
peculiarities, 231 ; participles m, 344;
on deity of Chri-t, 346.
Matthies, C. S., 132, 439.
Maurer, F. J. V. 1)., 123.
Maximinus the Arian, 243, 264, 268,
27S.
Max mus the Confessor, 279, 302, 310,
395-
McClellanJ". B., 197, 273, 276, 328.
Meier, F. C, 439.
Melanchthon, 463.
Meletius 322.
" Melissa, see Antonius.
Melito, 282, 322, 390, 396.
Memphitic Version, 212, 221, 228, 230,
231, 238, 252, 276. 288, 296, 298, 312,
324, 330. (See Egyptian Versions.)
Meander, 172.
Mende'ss'»hn, Felix, 156.
Mcnde.ssohn the Publisher, 166.
Me«»<iah, 332-350, 353, 355, 775; t>^e
Jewish not ider.titied witn Jehovah,
376, 378, 3S0, :;>4-3S6. 393. 41^-418,
426, 434. (See Chri t^ Jesus.)
Mess er, (K. F.) Hermann, 398, 449.
Methodius, 388. 392.
Meyer, H. A. \V., 132, 133, 233, 273,
294, 3i9» 344. 350. 351. 356. 358, 370.
381, 3S2, yji, 396, 400, 402, 403.405,
409, 422. 4;j7, 439, 445, 447f 449. 457-
Meyi ick. Prebendary F., 439.
Michaels, C. B., 188.
Michaelis, J. D., 186, 188,295.396, 449,
4J7. 4^-
Middleion, T. F., 439, 451, 453.
Mill, John, 213, 215, 218, 222, 23S, 298,
468, 476.
Milligan, William, 272, 294.
Milton, John, 297, 366.
Miniscalchi-Erizzo, Count Francesco,
163, 289. (See [Jerusalem] Syriac
Versions.)
Moldenhawer, J. H. D., 449.
Mollc, E. W., 449.
Monckeberg, C., 461.
Montagu, Bp., 259.
Montfaucon, Bernard de, 172, 259, 261,
264, 265, 277, 279, 2S7, 288, 298-300,
306, Zl^, 3S4, 428.
Monumenta Sacra Inedita, see Tisch^
endorf.
Moon, G. Washington, 451.
Mordec»i, 455.
Morel, sec i^ronto Ducaeus.
Morris, J. B , 328.
Morus, S. F. N., 335, 382.
Mosiieim, J. L. von, 428.
Mossman, T. W., 375.
Moulton's Winer, see Winer.
Mu and// interchanged, 324.
Muilach's Modern Greek Grammar,
286.
Miiller and Hoeppe's edition of Mark
in Gothic, 203.
Mural r, Eduard von, 405.
Muratorian Canon, 182.
fiaKapiGTor^ 357, 409.
fMCTa and Kara confounded in MSS., 428.
/z^r»7/), contracted in MSS., 148, 149.
fAOVoy€vr/<; ^tof, see tfe6^.
fwvoKcj/xj^ (//oj'OKw^.a), 383, 391.
fwVf contracted in MSS., 149.
Nathan, Rabri Isaac, his Hebrew
Concord ince, 464.
Neand'^r, J. A. W , 376, 449, 457.
Nestorians, 328, 329.
Nesiorius, 2&, 301, 329. 395.
Newcome. Abp. William, M4, 449.
Newman, Cardinal J. H., 388.
New rc-.tame-'t : words, 114, 121 ;
common version, 116; MSS., 140,
488
CRITICAL ESSAYS
141 ( ee Cod'x); editi-^nsoC, iSSsq^
160, 162, 163, 16.S, 170, 172, iSi9»
190; Latin, 160, 252, 277. 297, 302,
3^S 357. 39S 463, 466, 470; " Intro-
doctions'^tu, 174, iSo, 182, 186, 188,
202, 273, 275; Smith's Dicti<»iar7,
185 ; Westcott and Hort's, 197-203 ;
Greek text of, 200, 204-214; New
Ver&ion, 215-240 (see A*r^ist'^;
German, 273, 274; Dutch, 274, 466 ;
French, 274, 465; Rbemish version.
449; verses, 46^ sq.; Italian, 466;
Whittinghtrn's, 466. (See BMe,
Gospels^ Greek N. T.)
Nicaei, 377, 381, 382, 3SS ; its council,
see Councils; Nicene creed, 267,
371 372.381.
Nicander, 302.
Nicephorui Tbeotoki, 435.
Nicetas Choniates, 263.
NIedner, C. W., 157.
Niemeyer, H. A., 459, 461, 469.
Noesselt, J. A., 188, 370.
Noetians, 378, 391.
Nolte, 259.
Nonnus of PanopoHs, 135, 261, 268,
27?. 279* 288.
Norton, Andrews, 118, 133, 208,322,
335. 451 ; his Statement of Reasons,
242, 244, 247, 24S, 2-2. 364, 370, 372.
Novatian, 304. 323. 378, 394.
Noycs, George R., 132, 319, 376, 404.
CECOLAMPADIUS, J., 463.
CEcumciiius, Bshop tf Tricca, 300,
y^7^ 3'^7, 394, 445-
Oehler, Franz, 306, 394.
Oeh er, G. F., 376
Oertel, 10. F. C, 396, 399.
Old L.iiin Version, 158, 160, 212, 221,
228-231, 236, 238, 252, 257, 263, 26S,
269, 276, 277, 279, 287, 288, 296, 297,
299, 302-304, 308, 312, 330, 357, 390,
434, 449. (See Latin J'.r^mns^ Vul-
gate^ BtbUy New Tistavii nt^ etc.)
Old Testament: MS.S., 140, 141, 214,
231, 23S; stichometry in, 146, 151;
Tischendorf, 157; fragments, loi ;
quotations, 200, 201, 230; expres-
sions, 425.
Old Slavic Version, 357.
Olivetan, Pierre Robert, 465.
Olshausen, Hermann, 132, 273, 360,
361, 396. 39S, 439-
Okramare, llugues, 274, 319, 404,411,
414.
Optative, the, in doxologies, 355, 357,
400.
"Opus Imperfectum " (appended to
works of Chrysostorn), 267.
Oratio Azariae, 356.
"Oration again>t Demosthenes" (pa-
pyrus fragm., ed. Harris), 152.
?
Origen (Adamantius), 228, 230. sjx,
234. 23S, 243, 246, 247, 254. 2615, 2(58,
277-279, 281, 282, 2S4, 286-288, 292,
301, 310, 32(5i 329, 330. 3S7, 3S9, 390.
395,414,427-431,445.
Orme's Memoir, etc, 331.
Orsiesios (Oresicsis), 307.
** Orthodoxa Confes^io," 307.
Otto, J. C. T, 322, 390, 396.
Oudin, Casimir, 263.
Ove'beck, F. C, 294.
Ovid, 120.
Oxford: \U libraries, 158, 159^ 29^,
300, 328 ; univeriity, 173, 328 ; MSSl,
295,299.
h used with a nom. particip. in the
N. T., 344; ^ wv. 383 8q-. 392 sq-,
{97, 422-425* how Qiffering from
iarij 400
fmuq, 130, 131.
6c rcrrt, how diffeiing from h wv, 345,
40a
oufMvdg, contracted in MSS., 149 sq.
£>v, 6, 344, etc., see rljui.
Pacnivus, Sanctes, 465.
Pa ne, T. O., 357.
Paleogrnphy, 148, 15S, 172, 292. (See
Manuscripts^ etc.)
Palimpsests, 161, 162. 172, 173, 177,
1 78, 1 82. (See Manuscripts^
Palm, F., see Rost and Palm,
Panzer, Geore Wolfgang, 461.
Paper, see Papyrus.
Papc's Lexicon, 137.
Papyru , 137-139: papyrus MS., 161.
Paraclete, 259, 278, 3S9.
Paris: libraries, 158,217; Greek Tes-
taments publislicd at, 162, 210;
MSS., 300.
Parlatore (on the Papyrus plant), 139.
Paschale, John Lewis (Giovan. Luigi),
466.
Paschasitis the Deacon, 308, 309.
Paschasius Kadbertus, see Radbertus.
Passow, Franz, see Rost and Palm's
Passow.
Pastoral Epistles, Christology of, 447,
448.
Patripassian Controversy, 321, 324, 391.
Patristic Citations, see Fathers^ Greeks
Latin.
Paul the Apostle: words. 132; Tisch-
endorf s studies, 155; on Son of
God, 255; names of Christ, 2^6 ; his
u«e of language, 317, 318,361-363;
faith, 332, 333; sufferings, y^y, po-
sition, 334; Christology of, 291, 292,
361-365- 374. 37"^. 377. 379. 3^0.
447; MSS. of his Epistles, 160. 177,
178, 211, 212,217. 219 220, 296, 312,
315,316,447. 44^^-
Paulus II. E. G., 399. 401.
INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS
4S9
Pauly*d Real-Encyclopadic, 137.
Pearson, John, 371, 426.
Pelliian (Kurscaner), Conrad, 366,
463.
Pcnn, Granville, 297, 366, 367.
Persic Version, 228, 231.
Petavius, Dion}'sius (or Dcnys Petau),
253. 255. 310.
Peter of Clugny, iSo.
Peter the Apostle: preaching and
f pinions of, J74. 375, 377, 379-
Petermann, J. H., 321.
Pliciderer, 0:to, 450.
Philippi, F. A. (on Romans), 393, 396,
39S, 409, 421.
Philo (of Alexandria). 127, 158, 171,
284, 354. 369. 370. 372, 409. 410.
Philocalia, the, 278.
Philodemus, papyrus MS. of, 149, 211.
i'hoebadius, 246, 264, 26S, 277.
Photius, 126, 262, 287. 387, 392, 393,
433-
Pi and mu confounded :n MSS., 324-
i^ilaicActs {q.v.) of, 410.
Plato, 1 14, 204, 361, 428, 432.
Platter, Thomas, 459.
Piatt, Thomas Pell his yEthiopIc Ver-
sion, 248, 252, 26S, 276, 306, 310, 33a
Pliny, 138, 139.
Ph mouth l<rcihrcn. 175.
Po ock, Edwird, 426.
Polycarp, 115. 125, 127, 129, 130, 324.
Polyglott Bibles, see Antwerp^ Com'
plutcnsian, Walton s^ ttc.
Pomeranus, see Bui^cnhagen.
Pomtrius, Julianus, 308.
Porson, Richard, 239.
Porter, J. Scott, 179, 233, 294, 30S.
Postel, Guiltaume, 327.
Post-Nicene Writers, 444. (See Fath-
ers^ etc.)
Praxap>ostoli, 220, 408. (See Manu-
scripts.)
Pressense, Edmond dc, 186.
Prcvost, of British Museum, 181.
Priestley, Joseph, 375.
Primasius, 304, 308, 309, 445.
Proclus, 261, 268, 269, 277, 384.
Procopius Gazaeu«, 287.
Prosper A qui tan us, 308.
Proudfit, J'.hn, 306.
Proverbs, Book of, 255.
Prudentius, 24^, 246, 247, 28a
Przipcovius (Przpkowsky), Samuel,
397-
Psalms, Book of, 151, 161, 162,436;
Ziirich Psalter, 162.
Psalms (Psalter) of Solomon, 356.
Pseudo- Ambrose, - Athanasius, - Basil,
and the re>t, see Ambrose^ Athana-
sius^ Basil ^ etc.
Ptolemy, the Gnosicy 14S, 2CS.
:rdTi'pof, 137.
"rapa, after oir/u. 12S, 129.
TTapOKa'/.tu, 125, 131, 132.
:rarjip, contracted in MSS., 148, 149.
7r/<Tr/f. in Paul's quotations, 436.
riTiMa, contracted in MSS., 14S, 149*
V'fA-rcir, 409.
QuiNxuPLEX Psalter, 464, 465.
Quintilian, 120.
Quotations from the N. T., 212.
Rabanus Maurus, 308. 394.
Rabiper, J. K., 402.
Racovian Carec ism, 397.
Radbertus Paschasius, 265.
Rambaur, 435.
Rationalism, 1S2.
•'Recens ons," 1561
Redepenn'ng, E. R., 301, 389, 427.
Reiche, J. G., 401.
Reifferschcul, '^04.
Reithmayr, F. A., 396.
Reusch, v. U., 330, 3;ji.
Reuss, Eduard W. h., 184, 1S6, 312,
324, 39S, 400, 450, 457» 464-
Revelation, Look ot : last chapters,
175; Treg^lles 178; MSS. of, 210.
211, 212, 217, 220.
Reve at on, the divine, progressive,
376 sq.
Revision, the, 235, 272, 324; its mar-
gin. 230; American Reviser*, 213,
214, 274, 286, 294. 331, 365, 366, 449;
Bri ish, 1S3, 213, 272, 273. (See
B:bU\ Nc7v Te^tiimeitt.)
Rickli, C, 460, 462, 463.
Riddle, M. J<., 439.
Riehm, Eduard C. A., 376.
Rieu, of Bri;ih Museum, 181.
Rilliet. Albert, 274.
Ritschl, Albrcchs 378, 39S, 405.
Robris, Alexander, 272, 435.
Robinson, Edward, 124. 135,409, 449.
Roensch, Hermann, 321.
Romans, Epistle 10 the: lectures, 319;
texts, 332-350; participles, 344;
date, 37 5; Origen,3S9; catena, 392;
address, 420. (See Index of Bibli-
cal Passat^cs. )
Ro >e?, C. J. H., 325.
Rosenniiiilcr, J. G., 133, 188, 449.
Rossler, C. G., 324, 428.
Rost and Palm's Passow's Lexicon,
^V* 35F- ,
Rothe, Richard, 449, 457.
Routh, Martin Joseph, 258, 321, 388,
390. 39-. 3"/'-
Riickerr, L. Immanuel, 132, 319, 360,
361,398,402,405,409.
Rufinus ' i Afjuileia, 389, 427, 428.
Rufi us Svru> (or Palaeitinensis), 261,
268. 2;(), 277.
Ruinari, Thierry, 409.
490
CRITICAL ESSAYS
Sabarjesus, 30T, 302, 328, 329.
Sabas, Bp., 428.
Sabatier, Pierre, 222, 304, 30S.
SabeUiua, 26c\ 277.
Safaidic Version, 212, 221, 296b (See
Efyptian VtrsioHs,)
Salxnond, S. D. F., 391.
Sanday, W^- 396, 407, 432.
Sandius (Sand), Christoph., 372.
Sarravianos Cudex (f.v.), \Su
Savile, Sir Henry, his edition of Chrys-
ostom, 261, 298^300, 307.
SchaaTtt Syriac Cexioon. 203. (See
Syriac Vtrnons^
Schaff, P. : on Greek Testament, 197 ;
Introduction, 202 ; translation, 273.
Scheffer, 403.
Schenkel, D., 132, 439, 450.
Schleiermacher, F. K D., 370.
Schleusner, J. F., his N. T. Lexicon,
409.
Schirlitz, S. C, 135, 457.
r, F. - -
isner, J.
Scmichting, Jonas, 397, 398.
Schnaid, C. F., 398, 450, 457.
Schmidt, T. £. L, 188.
Schmidt, Woldi mar G., 404.
Schoettgcn, C, 135, 362, 376* 397.
Scholten, J. H., 403.
Scholz, J. M. A., 156,218, 303, 307-
310, 316, 408; his edition of the
Greek Testament, 179, 190, 191, 242,
46^
Schotr, H. A., 186, 188, 398, 405, 449,
469, 470.
Schrader, Karl, 401.
Schultz, Hermann, 342, 375-378, 382,
3S6, 393, 396.
Schulz, David, 156, 398.
Schumann, 449.
Schiit?, Adolph von, 289, 290.
Scriptures, see BibU^ Gospels^ New
Testament^ etc., etc.
Scrivener, F. H., 142, 186, 233, 251,
273, 276, 294, 296, 305, 308, 316, 365,
432. 469, 470; his "Collation," 152,
163, 164, 174, 213, 217, 218, 289-292,
311; his "Introduction," 180, 197,
202, 275.
Sedulius Scotus (or Junior), 303, 445.
Semler, Johann Salomo, 391, 396, 401,
463-
Seneca. Lucius Annacus, 120.
Septuagint, 115, 123, 124, 126-129, 132,
133, 158-160, 162, 168, 228-231, 238,
29^ Z^l^ 35i» 357, 359» 3^0, 4io» 425.
436-438 ; Holmes and Parsons's edi-
tion of, 168; errors in Tischendorf's
edition of, 168 n. (See Bible^ Trom-
mt'us.)
Sharp, Granville, his " rule," 439.
Shepherd of Hermas, see Ilermas,
Sibylline Oracles, 115, 125, 130, 323,
456.
Sifanos, 109.
Silvestre'jt PahQgrwby (f.v.)y 14&
Simon, Richard, 188.
Simonides, Constantioe, 172, 173.
Sinclair, W. M^ 457.
Sinker, Robert, 1O9.
Sionita, Antonins, 327.
Sirmond, Jacc^ues, 261, 262, 28a
Slavonic Version, 221, ^09, 463.
Smiih and Hall's JLatin Dictionary, 1 19.
Smith, G. Vance, 396, 407, 432.
Smith, John Pye, 375, 376* 398
S^ith, Payne, 270^ 327.
Smith's Bible Dictionary, 182, 185, 376;
Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Antiquities, 137.
Socinians: intei^reters, 366; com-
mentators, 378; sect, 387, 395, 405 J
glosses, 397.
Sodnns, Faustus, 378, 397.
Solomon, see PsaUer of. Wisdom of.
Sopbodes, £. A., 115. 123, 124, 2S9,
323.
Sophocles, oldest MS. of, 211.
''Speaker's Commentary," 377, 41 1»
427* 439. 457.
Spccnlum, The, 303, 304, 310, 330^ 331.
Spencer, Herbert^ 20i.
Steiger, Wilhehn, 447.
Stengel, 396.
Stephens, Henry, 463-467; his The-
sanruf, 115, 134.
Stephens, Robert, the elder, 190^ 210,
217, 234, 462-466, 468' 470.
Stephens, Robert, the y unger, 462,
463, 468.
Stephen the Martyr, 136; sermon, 374.
Stichometrv, 145, 146, 407.
Stier (R.)'ana Theile's {q.v,) Poly-
glot t, 190.
Stieren, A., 349, 435.
Stobaeus, 300.
Stolz. J. J., 399.
Strato, 115, 130.
Stuart, Moses, 314, 337, 351, 364, 380^
385. 386, 398, 401. 407» 440-
Suidis, 115, 124-126, 130.
Swedish Transliio-', 159, 170.
Swiss German Ver.-ion, 462.
Symmachus, 124.
Synagogue Liturg}', 382s
Synod of Ancyra, 243, 247, 254, 255,
268; of Antioch, 25S, 269, 323; of
Diamper, 329. (See Councils.)
Synoptic Gospels l^.r.), 374t 376-
Syriac Versions, 132, 163, 176, 212,
281, 289, 305, 310, 321, 323, 324, 326;
editions of, 305, 309, 327, 329, 397;
Leusden and Schaafs Peshi o, 203;
Harclean, 212, 221, 229, 231, 252,
26S, 269, 275, 27b, 287. 296, 305, 309,
31 =» 3U» 3-^» 3^9* 449; Jcrusalena,
163, 212, 221, 230, 252, 268, 269, 27^
wtmmm
INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS
491
289; Peshit> (Pcshitto), 203, 212,
221, 228, 230, 231, 252, 26S, 2^ 276,
281, 289. 305, 309, 326-330, 449. 463 i
Philoxcnian, 212, 22i» 252, 276, 296,
304» 30S1 3U» 328. (Sec Curetonian^
etc.)
Syrian Fathers, 281 , J29. (See Fathers.)
aTavf)68f/, contractea in Cod. Sin., 148,
149.
arfjKu, 286 sq.
Tatian, 322.
Taylor, John, of Norwich, ^98.
Tertullian, 228, 238, 246, 263, 268, 269,
277, 282, 297, 315, 321, 322, 388,394,
445-
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
127. 129, 169, 354.
Textus keceptus, see GretJk New
Testament.
Thapsensis, see Vigilius.
Thebaic Version, 212, 221, 230, 231,
288, 296, 312. (See Egyptian Ver-
sions^
Theile, K. G. W., 190, 469. (See
Stier and Theile.)
Thema Genethliacum, 148.
Theodore of Heraclea, 135.
Theodore of Mopsue-tia, 135, 261, 268,
269. 277, 329. 3"0» 393. 395. 409.
The- dortt, 132, 261, 268, 269, 277, 280,
288, 301, 310, 329, 387, 39J, 421, 445.
Theodorus Studita, 262, 260, 277, 300,
387.
Theodotion, 159.
Thtodotiia ofAncyra, 395.
Theodoius (the Valentinian), 253, 268,
269, 276, 281.
Theodulus, 394.
Theophilus of Alexandria, 395.
Theophylact, 132, 135, 262, 268, 277,
287, 299. 300, 307, 309, 387, 421, 445.
Thilo, Johann Ka'l, 168.
Tholuck, F. A. G., 273, 393, 396. 409,
42 f, 450.
Thomas of Harkel, 296, 304. (Sec
Syr toe Versions.)
Thomasius, Gottfried, 427.
Thompson, Joseph P., 396.
Tigurina Version, see Ziirich Bible.
Tischendorf, L. F. C. von : career, 1 55-
174; MonumentaSacralnedita, ITO,
167; relations with Tregelles, 175,
177 ; his journeys, 179; as editor, 197,
199; labors, 2\% 219, 220, 222, 223 ;
opinions, 251, 207. 296; the Fathers,
276; erroneous citations, 277, 278;
Septuagint, 290; Sinaitic and Vat-
ican MSB., 140-1^4, 160, 161, 241 ;
first edition of (Sreek Tetament,
156, 190; Prolegomena, IC7, 166;
minor editions, 166-168; critical ap-
paratus, iSi ; edition of 1854, 189;
of 1849, 190* '94; Seventh edition,
242, 24S, 266; Anecdota, etc., 159,
179, 219; Noiiiia, etc, 179, 219, 249,
250; Synop-is, 273; edition of 1869,
274; "Church ot God," 294-296,
298, 304-312, 314, 316,319, 329-331 ;
Romans ix. 5, 352, 357, 361, 362,
792, 405-408; Titus ii. 13, 439, 447;
John v. 7, 462 ; vcrse-divisions, 464-
467; in edi.i<«ns, 469. (See Bible^
Greek New Testatmnt^ Septuagint,)
Tittmann, J. A. H., 469.
Titus of Bostra, 243, 247, 260, 26S, 269,
277, 279, 280.
Todd, John A., 45S.
Tregelle«, Samuel Prideaux: Sinaiiic
Co ex, 152; errors attributed to,
154; Zicynthius Codex, 163; career,
175-183; discoveries, 194; labo's,
174, 213, 219, 220, 222, 233,469; his
Greek New Testament, 197, 199,
469; completion of, 181 ; 011 **oniy-
be otten God," 241-272, 274-279,
284; on " Church of God," 294, 29^
300. 304. 307, 316, 317, 329, 330; on
Romans jx. 5, 362, 366, 375; on
Titus li. 13.439-
Tremelliu^ Eaiinanuel, 327.
Trench, R. C, 1 13-136.
Trinity: doctrine, 209, 248, 254, 264,
277. 324* 374 "q., 413* 460; mys-ery,
376; glory, 392; trinitarian views,
_374»375. 377.
Tristram's (H. B.) Natural History of
the Bible, 138, 139.
Trommiu-»'» C 'ncordance to the Septu-
agint, 127,351.
Tiibingen Criucs, 164.
Turrianus (Turrien), Francisco, 297.
Twelve Patriarchs, see Testaments^ etc.
Tyndale, William, 382, 449.
TO or rd Kara^ etc., in restrictive phrases,
349» 4^ sq. ; r. 6C ov, r. 61' 6, r. e^
«'\ '• ' 9' '"'. 369-
6e6g: finvnytvi/q^ 241-285; in the pro-
logue of John's Gospel, 375; thdq
and o fieoi' in Philo, 369 sq. ; in the
N. T., 384 ; in later writers, 393 ; use
of in t e Fathes, 371 sq., 386; by
the Gno-tics, ^90; Paul's use ot,
348, 363 s-q-. 3^. 377 sq., 424. 427,
447; 6 nt}ag ^tof, 443 sq., 456 sq.;
ffedg To)v Bttov, 429; distinguished
from Ki'iHor^ 425-427.
U BALD I, UBALDO, 408.
Ueltgen, jS8.
Uhlmann s Coptic Grammar, 324.
Unigenitus Deus, 243, 246, 248, 256-
258, 263-265. 267, 277-279, 282.
(See Deus, God, etc.)
492
CIUTIGAL ESSAYS
Unitarian ControYcny, 426b 432.
Uranios P^impsest Ur.v.), 173.
Usteri, Leonhard, 3$^ 456.
Valentimus and the Valentmiam,
253» ^7^
Valesius (Henri de Valois), 390, 455.
Van der Palm, 207, 366.
Van Hcngcl, W. A^ 274, 319, 349,
35'. 39^4091 422, 432. 433. 450-
Van Hciwerden, 135.
Van Maet»Cf icnt, Sce Fen Mastrieht,
Vatable (Guastebl d), Franfots, 465.
Vatican MS^ see CmT. VatUanm,
Vaug .an, C. T., 396.
Verbals in -rd^:, 409.
Vcrcellone, C^ 181, 476.
Verse-jiviaions in the N. T., 470-477.
Ver-ions of the Bible, see jEtkiopic^
Arabic^ Armtnian^ etc.
Victorinui Afer, 263, 264, 268, 277,
279.395-
Vi^iliui I'hapsensis, 243, 247, 265, 268,
278, 279, 331.
Vinke, H. L., 135, 292.
Virgin Ma^y, 282.
Viss -ring, 403.
Volheding/fohann Ernst, 155.
V Ikmar, G , 169, 319, 404.
Von P'alkenstein, 157.
Von Mastrieht, Gerhard, 184-188, 468.
Voss, Isaac, 131, 134.
Vulgate, the, 119. 157, 158, 160, 165,
172, 177, 210, 211, 217, 218, 221,
228, 230, 231, 238, 252, 257, 263.
268, 269, 276, 279, 288, 303-305,
30S, VS^Z^^^ 329- 330. 449. 464* 465,
469, 476. (See Lit in Versions^ Old
Latin, Nro) Testament^ etc.)
Wahl, C. a., 127, 132, 135, 324, 351,
409.
Wakefield, Gilbert, 133, 398.
Walch, J. G., 188, 458-463.
Walton'-^ Po'yglot, 329.
Ward, W. H., 299.
Waterland, Daniel, 426.
Wattenbach, W., 13S.
Weber, Fercl., 376.
Webster, William (Webster and Wil-
kinson), 115, 123, 124, 126,451.
Weiss, li., 134, 233, 36S, 378, 425, 426.
Weizsacker, Car!, 134, 274, 294, 319,
404, 450.
Wesseling, Peter, 4s6.
Westcott and Hort, 154, 174, I79b 185,
197-203,213, 214, 233, 270* 294, 205,
3»9. 353. 354. 365. 375. 383. 3«6. 389.
390, 395. 396b 405, 407, 439, 447, 450,
469, 47a (See Gruk New Tesitt-
WUMt)
Wetsuin, J. J., 188, 21^ 218, 222,
242, 243, 247; 263, 266. 278, 295,
298, 301-304, 30H, 310, 314, 316, 322,
323. 325. 352. 370, 3^4. 390. 400, 4 I,
449. 457. 408.
Whiston, William, 372, 40a
Whitby, Daniel, 324, 349, 363, 391,
398, 444, 445.
WMtti..gham, William, 466.
Wichelhaus, Johannes, 338, 329.
Widmanstadt, Johann Albrecnt, 327.
Wieaelcr, K., 319, 325, 447.
Wilke, C G., 405, 457.
Wilkins, David, 276.
Wilkinson*a (Sir John Gardner) Egypt,
Wilkinson, see Wtbsier and WUkinson.
Winer, Georg Benedict, 157, 188, 290,
3»9. 324. 345. 349. 357. 359. 360, 3^4.
405, 41 0^ 422, 437, 439, 440, 447, 450,
452, 454, 457.
Winstanle.s Calvin, 444,451.
Winter, J. F., 401.
Wisdom of Solomon, 255.
Word, 306^ 325. 376. (Sec Logos,)
Wordsworth, Chr., 114, 122, 273, 294,
3"8. 335* 383. 444. 469.
Wright, William, 279, 326, 327, 330,
464.
Xenophon, 350.
YaHWEH, Kvpin^^ 380.
Young, Edward J., 319.
•' Young Mystic, The," 156.
Young, Patrick (Junius, Patricius), 324.
Young's Analytical Concordance, 358.
Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, 263.
Zacynthius, see Cod, Z,
Zafiri (Z-phyrus Franciscus), 435.
Z^ller, Eduard, 402.
Ziegler, L.. 330, 331.
Zigabenus (or Zygadenus), see Euthy-
mius.
Zohar, the book, 376.
Zurich : library, 158, 167 ; Psalter, 162,
1 68; catechism, 462; Bible, 463.
II. INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES.
N.B. — For references of a general character, see the names of the Biblical
writers and books in the preceding index.
OLD TESTAMENT.
NoTS. — The abbreTiation S. stands for Septuagiat ; and this version is also aometimet indi-
cated by added references in Paurentheses.
Genesis:
-. 17, . .
. . 456
. . . 168
i. 26, . .
• •
280
xi. 10, . .
ill. 14, .
1 • •
357
xiv. 12-18,
145, 146
iv. ii» . .
I • •
357
xxiii. I,
. . . 3'7
xii. 2, . .
• •
410
xxiii. 2,
• . 3'7
xiv. 19, 356, 358,
410
xxiii. 3,
xxiii. 8, . .
• . 317
xiv. 20, 356, 358,
359.
. . 3'7
410
xxviii. 6, .
. . 410
XV. 24, . .
226,
227
xxxii. 39, .
. . 168
xxiv. 27,
1 • •
359
xxxii. 49, .
. . 168
xxiv. 31, .
I • •
410
xxxiii. 24, .
. . 410
XXV. 30,
■ • •
168
Joshua :
xxvi. 29,
• 357.
410
ix. 23, . .
• • 357
xxvii. II,
1 • •
168
ix. 29, . .
• • 357
xxvii. 29, .
» • •
35^
X. I, 3, . .
. . 149
xxvii. 44, ,
xxxi. 48,
1 • •
> • •
rd
X'. . . .
xii. 10, . .
• . 149
• • 149
xliii. 17,
> • •
168
xii. 10-22, .
• . «45
xliv. I, . ,
» « •
35'
XV. 5, . .
. . 140
, xliv. 19, .
xlvi. 28-1. :
1 • •
114
xvii. 10, .
. . 168
26, .
147
Judges:
Exodus :
xvii. 2, . .
. . 410
iii. 14, .
. 263. 383
Ruth:
iii. 14 (S.),
3^3
ii. 19, . .
• . . 358
vii. I, .
370
ii. 20, . .
363* 410
viii. 42,
287
iv. 14, . .
• • 359
xiv. .
149
354
I Samuel:
XV. 18, .
m K./ f» A*a %/ a^A^ •
X. 4, .
. . . 123
xviii. 10,
XX. 13, .
359
224
xii. 13, .
xii. iS-xiv.
. . . 121
9, . 167
xxix. 17, .
168
XV. 13, .
. 363. 410
xxix. 22, .
168
xix. II ff., .
. . 147
Leviticus:
xix. II,. .
. . 147
xi. 13-19,
146
3SXV.33, 3
56,358,410,
xiv. 10,. ,
224
437, 438
xvii. 14, .
224
XXV. 32, 3
56, 358, 359»
Numbers:
410
xxvii. 18,
• •
168
XXV. 39, .
• • 359
Deuterono]
MY :
XXX. 21,
. . 123
vii. 14, .
■ 3^3^
410
2 Samuel:
viii. 21,
• m
456
viii. 10.
. . 123
X. 12, .
126,
i3«
xviii. 28, .
• • 359
xxiii. 1-7,
I Kings:
450
1. 40,
359
ii. 44, .
357
ii. 45, .
ii. 40, .
357
357
iii. II, .
114
iii. 15, .
223
V. 7, . .
359
viii. IS,,
viii. 56^ ,
359
359
X. 9, . .
358
xix. ii-xxu.
149
2 Kings :
i.-xxv. .
•
149
I Chronicles:
i. 5«-54,
•
'45
xviii. 10,
•
'23
xxviii. 8,
•
3'7
xxix. II,
•
207
,238
2 Chronicles:
ii. 4 (S.),
456
ii. 12, .
359
vi. 4, .
359
ix. 8,
358
Ezra:
vii. 27, .
359
viii. 12, .
114
Nehemiah
•
•
i. 5»..; •
456
i.-xiii. .
147
r 149
vii. 6, .
456
ix. 2,
456
X. 31, .
224
Esther :
vii. 7, .
129
viii. . .
352
Job :
i. 21,
358
xix. 16, .
290
xxix. ^, .
226
xxxviii. II,
290
494
CRITICAL BSSAYS
xxxviii. 26b .
Psalms:
V.6,. . . .
six. 9i . . .
XXVII. (S.) 6k •
xxviii. . . .
XXX. 32 (S.), .
xxxiii. 6k . .
xh (xH.), 14, .
xlix. 19--IXX. II,
bar. 20 (S.),
• •• <• •<•
290
288
168
359
277
jg
Ixvii. (Ixriii.) 20^ 35<C
361
Ixviii. 20 (Ixvii. m,
S.), 14. • 43^437
Ixxi. (IxxiL) it, 356
Ixxi. 18, ... 359
IxxL (Ixxii.) 19, . 356
Ixxiii. II, . . . 259
Ixxvi. 13, . . . 456
Ixxxvi. 10^ . . 456
Ixxxviii. (Ixxxix.)
.53. . . . . 3#
civ. 9, . . . . 168
cix. I, . . . . 261
dx. II, . . . . 168
CX-. 37<
ex. I, . . 168,
*cxii. (cxiii.), 2, . 358
Gxiit. 23, . . . 168
cxvii. (cxviii.) 26^ 363
cxviii. (cxix.) 12, 409
cxxi. 6^. • 115,123
cxxti. 6^ . 115,123
cxxiii. 6 (S.),
cxxxiv. 21 (S.),
cxxxviiL 35, .
cxliii. . • .
cxiiti. I (S.), •
cxliv. 13, . .
cxlv. 13, . •
Proverbs:
viiL 22, . . .
xiv. 15, . .
xiv. 21 (S.), .
xvi. 20 (S.), .
xxix. 18 (S.), .
Isaiah :
vi. I, . .
ix.6b - •
xxix. 13, .
XXXV. 9, .
XXXV. 10^ .
bd. I, . .
Jsrrmiah:
xxiii. 5,
359
359
203
168
359
354
354
254
225
357
357
357
2591279
. 376
. 228
. 302
* 302
' 230
. 426
xxiii. 6, . . 376^ 426
xxxi. 15, . . . 230
xxxii. i8» . . . 456
xxxiL 19k... 456
xxxiiL I c, . . . 426
xxxiii. 10^ . 376^ 426
Lamrntatxons:
IV. 4, . .
Ezrkirl:
XV. 2, • •
xxiv. 7,
xliv. . . .
Danirl:
ii. 20^ . .
ii. 45, . .
iii. 28, . .
ix.4, . •
Hosra:
!• 7» " • •
MiCAH:
ii. 5, . .
V. 4* . • •
Habakkuk:
ii. 5, . . .
tii. 17, . .
Zbchariah :
iL 10^ . .
X. la, .' .
. . 114
. 168
. 224
264,278
456
3S9
456
426
426
426
426
Esdras :
vi. 24, .
I Esdras:
iv. 2,
iv. 12, .
iv. 60, .
vi. 24, .
ix. 27, .
ix. 28, .
Tobit:
iii. II, .
viii. 5,
viii. 15
xi. n,
xi. 16,
xi. 17,
xiii. 6,
xiii. 10,
xiii. 12,
xiii. 18,
Judith :
xiii. 17, . . . . 409
xiii. 18, . 356, 410
xiv. 13, ... 351
Esther (Supplement) :
vii. 6, .... 455
-17
. . 168
. . 290
. . 290
. . 409
. . 168
. . 168
. . 168
. . 409
. . 409
. . 409
• 356, 409
356, 409, 410
• 359. 409
• • • 354
• • • 354
. . . 410
. . . 410
APOCRYPHA.
Wisdom of Solomon :
xiii. I ff., . . . 383
xiv. 7 (S.), . . 357
xiv. 8 (S.), . . 357
ECCLESIASTICUS (Sir-
ach) :
xvi. 12, . . .
xvi. 13, . . .
xvi. 14, . .
xxi. I, . . .
xxviii. 4, . .
xxxiii. 19,
' xxxvi. 22,
xxxix. 5,
XXX ix. 6,
xl. 5, .
Psalms of
ii- 33» • •
viii. 41, . .
viii. 42, . .
1 Maccabees:
iv. 20, . .
V. 55-x. 18,
X. 69, . .
2 Maccabees :
ii. 21, . .
• • 223
• . 223
. . 223
. . 123
• • 123
• • 354
• • 354
. . 123
• • 456
. . 456
Solomon :
456
356
356
409
144
351
455
iii. 24, .
iii. 30, .
iii. 34* .
V. 20, .
vii. 10, .
vii. 24, .
xi. 8,
xi. 10, .
xi. 13, .
xii. 15, .
xii. 22, .
xiv. 15,.
XV. 22, .
XV. 23, .
XV. 27, .
XV. 34, .
3 Maccabees :
i. 9, . .
i. 16,
iii. II, .
V. 8, .
V. 25, .
V. 35» •
V. 51, .
vi. 18, .
vii. 2, .
vii. 42, .
455
455
450
126, 1 28
409
455
455
456
455
455
455
455
455
455
455
450
456
456
455
455
456
456
INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES
495
Matthew :
vii. 9, .
i. c. . . .
1. o, . . .
. . 192
>93. 234
vii. II, .
vii. 19, .
i. 12, . .
. • 193
vii. 22, .
i. i8, . I
48, 195. 391
vii. 25, .
i. 19, . .
. . 195
vii. 27, .
i. 20, . .
148, 267
viii. 3, .
i.2r, . .
1. 26,
. . 207
viii. 5, .
• . 232
viii. 7, .
ii. I,. . .
. . 470
viii. 9, .
ii. 2, . . .
. . 470
viii. 29,
ii. 8, . . .
. . 19s
viii. 31,
ii. 9, . .
. . 195
ix. 5, .
ii. II, . .
. . 193
ix. 8,
ii. 13. • •
. . 193
ix. 13, .
11. 17, .
. . . 195
ix. 17, .
ii. 18, . .
. . 230
ix. 22, .
ii. 22, .
. . . 193
ix. 23, .
iii. II, . .
. . 148
ix. 24, .
iii. 15, . ,
• • • y
111. 16, I
. . 192
48, 192, 193
ix. 28, .
ix. 32, .
iii. 17, . .
. . 260
ix. 35, .
iv. I, . .
. . 148
X. 2, . .
iv. 2, . .
• • 233
X. 3, . .
iv. 3, . .
. . 123
X. 15, .
iv. 4. . .
• • 233
X. 41, .
iv. 8, . .
. • 233
xi. 13. .
iv. 10, . .
• • • 233
xi. iq, .
iv. II, .
. 192, 193
XI. 16, .
iv. 12, .
. . . 234
xi. 19, .
iv. 18, . .
. . . 234
xi. 23, .
iv. 23, . ,
i93» 234
xi. 27, .
V. 1-12,
i43-'45
xii. lo, .
V. 4, . .
. . . 470
xii. 13, .
V. 5, . .
. . 470
xii. 30, .
V. 9, . .
. . . 267
xii. 31, .
V. 21, .
. . . 234
xii. 44, .
V. 22, .
• • • 23s
xii. 46, .
V. 27, . .
192, 234
xii. 47, .
V. 30, .
. . . 192
xiii. 2, .
• V. 33. •
V. 38, .
, . . 192
. . . 192
• • • ^
xiii. 0, .
xin. 8, .
V. 39. . -
. . . 3S7
xiii. 9, .
V. 42. .
. . . 128
xiii. 14,
V. 43. •
. . . 192
xiii. 16,
V. 44, . z
06, 232, 275
xiii. 36,
vi. I, . 2
07. 23s, 275
xiii. 43,
xiii. 48,
vi. 2,
• • • 23s
vi. 4, .
vi. 6, . ,
. . . 227
. 227. 275
xiii. ^2,
XIV. 6, .
vi. 8, I
28.275.3"
xiv. 15,
vi. 9, .
. . . 234
xiv. 19, .
vi. 10, . .
. . . 234
xiv. 27, .
vi. 13, 2C
)6, 234, 275,
XV. 5, .
XV. 6, .
355. 410
vi. 15, . .
' • . 233
XV. 7, .
v. 18, ,
. . . 227
XV. 8.1 .
VI. 32,
vii. 7.
193
114
NEW TESTAMENT.
114
. 128
• 193
. 192
. 193
. 193
. 234
. 234
• 234
• 3"
192. 232
. 193
. 192
• >93
206, 233
• 233
• 233
. 470
• 470
. 192
• 3"
• 234
. 476
. 476
• 233
. 192
19a
• 233
• 193
. 207
. 192
142, 378
• 235
• 233
. 343
• '93
. 192
. 292
193, 292
. 292
192, 193
. 223
• 233
. 192
■ '93
. 192
• 233
• 193
192, 193
. 192
. 192
• '93
. 192
. 470
. 470
. 192
. 228
116, 121, 130
. . . 145
zvi. 2,
XV i. 3,
xvi. 8,
xvi. II,
xvi. 13,
xvi. 14,
xvi. 16,
xvi. 21,
xvi. 23,
xvi. 27,
xvi. 28,
xvii. 4,
xvii. 5,
xvii. 10,
xvii. II,
xvii. 21,
xvii. 24,
xvii. 24-xx
xvii. 58,
xvii. I,
xviii. 4,
198, 206
19S, 206, 232
• '93
• 223
. 223
• "7
234.370
• 275
• 233
. 441
. '93
. '93
. 260
• 234
. 234
206, 232
• 243
xviii. 16,
xviii. 19,
xviii. 20,
xix. I,
17.
142.
'43
117
'93
192
xviii. II, 193, 206, 232
* * * ^
'93
'21, 134
. 134
'43
xix. 16, 156,207,232,
275
xix. 17, 232, 267, 275
xix. 18 ff., 143, 144
XV. 23,
XV. 30,
XIX. 20,
xix. 29,
XX. 3,
XX. 4.
XX. s,
XX. 6,
XX. 7,
XX. 16,
XX. 20,
XX. 22,
XX. 23,
XX. 28,
xxi. I,
xxi. 2,
xxi. 3,
xxi. 9,
xxi. 12,
xxi. 18,
xxi. 22,
xxi. 25,
xxi. 26,
xxi. 44,
xxii. 14,
xxii. 41,
xxii. 42,
xxii. 43-45.
xxii. 45, .
• 233
• 233
234, 292
234. 476
. 476
234, 292
. 234
206, 234
121
231, 232
23'. 232
• 236
. 470
. 470
192, 193
. 452
. '93
. 121
. 471
. 471
. 206
206, 234
. 476
. 476
. 426
• 193
496
CRITICAL ESSAYS
xxiii. 4, ... 193
zziii. ij, ... 471
zjdii. I4t 193, 19J, ao6b
233.471
zjaii. 19,
xxiii. 27,
xxiii. 38,
Miv. 15,
xxiv. 40^
xxiv. 4(,
XXV. 6^ .
XXV. 15,
xxvi 9,
«vL33,
xxvi. 35,
xxvi. 39,
xxvi. 56^
xxvL 02,
xxvi. 63,
xxvi. 70^
xxvi. 73,
xxvii. 35,
xxvii. 47,
xxvii. 49,
xxvii. 58,
xxviii. 8,
xxviii. 9,
xxviii. 19,
Mark:
i. 2, . .
ii. 17,
•••
111. 2,
iii- 5.
III. 14,
iii. 19,
iii. 20,
iv. 9,
iv. 21,
iv. 23,
v. 7. •
V. 40,
vi. II,
vi. 22,
vi. 27,
VI. 28,
vii. 2,
vii. 5,
vii. 8,
vii. 16,
vii. 26,
viii. 29,
viii. 38,
viii. 39-ix,
ix. . .
ix. 1-50,
ix. 2,
ix. 12, .
ix. 23, .
ix. 43, .
ix. 44, .
ix. 48, .
IX. 41
ix. 4(
27 s
1-49
»93
«34
. 292
• *3^
. 967
193» «7
• 235
• 195
• >9S
• 195
• 195
• »93
. 224
. 224
. 192
. 292
206^233
192, 292
275.3"
• «3«
234f47i
234t47i
. 460
. 207
206^ 232
• 235
• 233
• 275
. 471
• 471
• 233
2S3, 311
• 233
• 232
• 233
206, 233
' 275
. 471
. 471
• 23s
• 235
• 234
206, 233
116, 130
• 27^
• 441
476
• 477
• 476
• 477
• 234
. 207
• 234
206, 234
• 234
X.I7,
x.i8»
X. 20^
^29^
«.35.
x.37»
X.38.
x:39.
»;-5.
xi. 10^
xi. 2j
xL 261
xi. 29,
xii. 13,
xiLi4.
«i. 15.
ai- 35-37-
xii. 40,
xiii. i-xvL
xitt. i-xvi.
xui. 8, .
xiii. 9» .
xiii. 14,
xHi. 16,
XIT. 61, .
XV. 28, .
XV. 43, .
xvL 0, .
zvi. 8-20,
xvi. 9-20^
xvi. i6»
xvi. 27,
xviL 26^
Luke :
i. 17,
i. 28,
i. 42,
i. 46-55
i..8,
1.03,
i. 68.
i. 68-79,
i. 73»
i. 74.
i. 80,
ii. 7,
ii. 14,
ii. 29-32
ii. 38,
ii. 40,
ii. 41,
ii. 42,
iii. 22,
iv. 2,
iv. 4.
iv- ^.
iv. 8.
iv. 18,
iv. 19,
iv. 30,
iv. 38,
IV. 44,
. 233
. 232
• 233
i4St 233
I2I» 224
. 224
. 231
. 231
. 292
• 363
• 234
ao^233
. 232
225, 226
2a6b 292, 476
. 476
. 426
• 233
8, 143.144
20, . 142
. 471
• 471
. 142
• 343
362,409
206^233
. "7
150,151
. 200
• 154
. 130
. 131
• 27s
234, 363
234, Z^Z
201, 220
■ 35'
. 126
359. 362
201, 220
• 476
• 476
• 234
207, 232, 266
. 207
. 220
324* 347
• 234
. 234
• 234
. 460
• 233
• 233
• 233
• 233
230, 471
230, 47 1
118, 121, 123,
130
. . . 207
▼;3, .
V.32.
v.3^
VI. 3.
vi.4.
vL 10^
vi. 17,
vi. i8»
vi. 21,
vi. 27,
vi. 28,
▼;-30.
^:4S
^•>
vu. o^
▼ii. 7,
▼iL 18,
vii. I9»
vii. 36,
viiLS,
viiL 20,
viii. 28,
viii.37t
viii. 40^
viii 48,
viii. 54,
ix. 20,
ix. 26,
ix.42,
i«-43.
«-54,
i^ 5&
ix. 56^
X. 21,
X. 22,
X. 32,
x-35*
XI. 2,
xi. 4,
xi. II,
xi. 13,
xi. 23,
xi. 37,
XI. 41,
xi. 44,
xi. 54.
xii. 21,
xii. 48,
xii. 56,
xiii. 13,
xiii. 35,
xiv. 3, .
xiv. 4, .
xiv. 5, .
xiv. 7-1 1,
xiv. 13,
xiv. 10,
xiv. 19,
xiv. 32,
xiv. 34, .
xiv. 35, .
XV. 21, .
118, 130
206b 233
• • 233
• • 343
. . 236
• • 233
. . 471
. . 471
. . 142
206^232
206^ 232
. . 128
116*130
. . 116
. . 116
. . 471
. . 47«
118, 126
• • 233
. . 291
. . 232
. . 283
• • 233
• • 233
. . 370
441, 452
. . 476
. . 476
. . 476
20^ 207, 237
206, 207
• • 471
. . 471
. . 224
• • 235
233. 275
233. 275
. . 114
. . 128
• • 343
18, 126, 130
• • 235
• - 234
• • 235
• • 23^
. . 126
. . 232
. . 16S
• • 234
. . 471
. . 471
. . 207
. . 236
. . 145
iiS, 130
118, 130
[4, 118, 130
. . 472
232, 472
275.3"
INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES
497
Xvi. 22, • . . . 476
xvi. 23, ... 476
xvi. 27, . . 116, 131
xvii. I i-xxiv. 53, I43t
144
xvii. i6k
225, 324
xvii.3j. .
XVU. 30, 21
. . 476
o6» 234, 476
xvii. 37, .
. . 476
• • • rt
xviu. 18, .
• «
. 232
xviii. 19, .
• t
ft 232
xviii. 21, .
•
• 233
xviii. 29, .
•
• 233
xix. 10, . .
•
ft 232
xix. 31,. .
. 1
. 131
xix. 38, . .
» .
• 131
xix. 41, . .
•
ft 472
xix. 42,
t •
ft 472
XX. 38, . ,
» •
. 384
XX. 41-44, .
k «
ft 426
XX. 47, . ,
t •
• 233
. 236
xxi. . . .
ft .
xxi. 4, . .
xxii. 19, .
:l
xxii. 20, .
ft .
. 198
xxii. 23, .
ft .
. 128
xxii. 37, ,
> .
V 233
xxii. 43, ,
198, 206
xxii. 44, .
198, 206
xxii. 64, .
• • • 235
xxii. 66,
. . . 472
xxii. 67, .
ft . . 472
xxiii. 10, .
ft . . 291
xxiii. 15,
. . . 207
xxiii. 17, .
206, 23s
xxiii. 32,
•«• V ^75
xxiii. 34, I
98, 206, 207
xxiii. 49, .
• • •
. . . 291
xxiii. 52, .
ft . . 117
xxiv. 3, .
. . . 198
xxiv. 4, . ,
. . . 166
xxiv. 6^ . .
ft . . 198
xxiv. 12, ,
198, 206
XXIV. 13, .
ft . . 167
xxiv. 21, .
ft . . 167
XXIV. 36, .
, . . 198
xxiv. 40, .
19S, 206
xxiv. 4c, .
xxiv. 46^ .
ft . . 472
ft . . 472
xxiv. 51,
ft 198, 207
xxiv. 52,
. . 198
John:
i. I, 255, 2f
$4, 285. 318.
347, 375
i. 1-18, 2
•
54, 256, 259
1. 7, . .
. . . 259
. . 263
1.9, .. .
1. 14,
. . 259
i. I?, . .
23s. 275
1. 16,
• • 370
i. 18, 16
7,207
,241-
1. 19,
i. 25,
i. 26,
i. 27,
1-35.
1.38.
1-39.
!• 3^5'.
1. 40-52,
111. 5, .
111. 6, .
iii. 13,
28> 299, 344, 345,
304. 375» 383. 384
. . 166
. . 347
291, 292
• • 235
291, 292
. . 472
. . 472
. . 472
• • 472
. . 164
« • • 314
198, 207, 275,
... . 344,384
III. 16, . . 259, 284
iii. 18, ... . 284
iii. 25, ... . 256
iii. 29, ... . 292
iii. 31, .... 343
ni. 34. .... 370
iv. 10, ... . 128
iv. 13, ... . 476
iv. 14, . . . . 476
iv. 31, 116, 121, no
iv. 32 166
Jv. 35, . . . . 472
IV. 36, ... . 472
iv. 40, . . 117, 130
iv. 47, . . 117, 130
V. 3, . . . 206, 237
V. 4, . . . 206, 237
V. 16, . . 115,235
V. 17, ... . 460
vi. 22, ... . 292
vi. 46, . . 343.384
vi. 47-58, ... 307
vi. 51, ... . 476
vi. 51-59. ... 156
vi. 52, ... . 476
vi. 52-71, ... 476
vi. 53-72. ... 476
vi. 6q, . . 234, 376
vii. 8, . . 207, 275
vii. 30 34
vii. 36, .... 23
vii. 37 291
vii. 52. ... . 151
vii. 53-vii. II, 195,
198, 206, 236, 329
viii. 44, 286-293, 347
viii. 47, ... 343
viii. 59, . . . 235
ix. II, . . . . 472
ix. 12, ... . 472
ix. 40, . . 166, 343
x. 18, . . . . 311
X. 25 226
X. 30, . . 429,460
X. 33, . . . . 460
X. 36, . . . . 367
xi. 22, . . 126, 132
xi. 31, .... 344
xi. 34, .... 476
>t'-35 476
xi. 56,
xi. 57.
xii. 17,
xii. 21,
xii. 29,
xiii. 14,
xiii. 29,
xiii. 30,
xiii. 31,
xiv. 10,
xiv. 14,
xiv. 16,
XV. 16, .
xvi. 19, .
xvi. 23,
121,
xvi. 26,
xvi. 30, .
xvii. 3, .
xvii. 9,
xvii. 15,
xvii. 20,
xviii. 16,
xviii. 32,
xviii. 37,
xix. 6, .
xix. 15,
xix. 10,
xix. 20,
xix. 21,
xix. 24, .
xix. 31,
xix. 38,
xix. 40,
xix. 41,
XX. II, .
XX. 20, .
XX. 2C, •
XX. 28, .
XX. 31, .
xxi. 12,
xxi. 25,
Acts:
ii. 10, .
ii. II, .
ii. 14-36,
ii. 21, .
1-35. .
1.36, .
i. 47, .
ii. I, .
ii. 2, .
".3,
ii. 14, .
ii. 19, .
ii. 20, .
V. 32» .
. 476
• 476
344.345
117. 130
. 292
. 152
. 123
• 470
. 476
. 370
. 207
114, 118, 130,
i3«
. . . 121
' ' ' ^33
114, 115, 11^
130. 133. 135
114,118,130,
i3«. '33
... 133
• 254, 457
114. 118, 123,
130. 131
114, 118, 123,
130, 131
114,118,123.
130, i3«
. 291
. 283
. 344
. 142
. 142
. 142
. 224
. 224
• 233
. "7
. 117
. ^83
• 3"
. 291
. 236
. 223
. 364
. 376
. 133
206, 235
. 472
. 472
374, 375
. 136
. 379
37(>* 379
. 472
. 472
114, 131, 134
114, 117. 130,
'3', 134
. . . 128
. . . 472
. 441, 472
. . • 429
498
CRITICAL ESSAYS
V. 8, .
. . 472
XV. 40, . .
. . 316
i. 29. . .
407. 473
V. 9,.
. . 472
xvL7, . .
. . 207
i. 29-31, .
r46
V. 17,
. . 344
xvi. 29, . .
. . 126
1. 30, . .
• ^73
V.39.
. . 472
KVL32,. .
27S» 316
"• 5. • •
. 442
V. 40,
. . 472
ivi.37,. .
•. . 477
11. 6, . .
. 442
V. 42,
. . 376 :
KVl. 38, .
. . 477
ii. 9 £F.,
• 353
vii. 46,
. . 128 :
Kvi. 39, . .
"7. 130
ii. 15, . .
• 393
vii. 55,
. . 476 xvii. 3. . .
• • 376
ii. 16, . .
. 442
vii. 56, ,
. . 476 xvii. 13, .
. . 311
ii. 17, . .
. 3»6
vii. 56-S9,
vii. 57-60,
. . 476 xvii. 31, .
367.442
ill ...
. 340
. . 476 rviii. 5,
• • 376
lii. I, . .
. 418
vii. p, ,
VII. 60,
. . 136 xviii. ir, .
. . 476 xviiL 12, .
. . 3"
. • 473
iii. 2, . .
» • •
111. 4, . .
. 418
. 340
viii. I, .
viii. 5, .
. . 476 xviii. 13, .
. . 376 xviii. 20, .
• • 47;
iii. 18, . .
iii. 25, . .
111. 26, . .
. 3'6
. 477
viii. 7, .
. . 476 xviii. 28, .
. . 376
1
• 477
Vlll. 8, .
. , 476 xlx. 4, . .
. . 123
iii. 29, . .
355.386
viii. 9, ,
. . 477 XX. 19. . .
306.318
iii. 29 ff., .
• 353
viii. 19,
. . 477 XX. 2r, . .
306,318
iv. I, . .
V
• 349
viii. 20,
. . 476 XX. 24, . .
306,318
iv. 4, . 152.
407,408
viii. 22,
. . 316 XX. 25. . .
306,318
iv. 5. . .
1
. 225
viii. 24,
. . 316 XX. 25-30, .
. . 297
iv. 24, . . ,
» «
" 367
viii. 27,
. . 351 XX. 27, . .
306,318
V. 8, . . . ,
t 1
^
viii. 37i
. . 206 XX. 28, 20;
^ 294-33'.
V. II, . . .
1 <
. 3^6
ix. 5, . 206,
ix. 6, . 206,
210, 218
365. 374
V. 14, . . .
1
345
210, 218 XX. 32, . .
306, 318
\i. 4, . .
3^7f 442
ix. 14, . . ,
. . 136 aut.3S 30^
s 318, 324,
Vi. 17, . . .
VII. 6, . .
. . 362
ix. 20, . .
■ . 376
32 s
210, 218
ix. 21, . .
, . 136 xxii. 9^ . .
. . 343
vii. 25, . .
340,362
ix. 22, . .
ix. 28, . .
. . 376 xxii. 10, .
. 477 xxii. 12, .
. . 207
. . 477
vi.i.q; . . .
Vlll. 8, . . .
343
343
ix. 29, . .
. 477 xxii. 13, .
• . 477
viii. II, . .
3fi7
ix. 31, . ,
. . 316 xxii. 10, .
. . 136
viii. 20, . ,
473
X. 36, . .
X. 40, . •
. 384 xxiii. 18, .
117, 131 xxiii. 20, .
118, 130
118, 130
viii. 21, . .
viii. 2i-ix. II,
4oJi
xi. I,
. . 344 xxiv. 2,
• . 473
viii. 23, . .
453
xi. 20, .
207, 298 xxiv. 3,
. . 473
viii. 23-ix. II,
407
xi. 25, .
X. 26, . .
. . 472 xxiv. 6-8, .
. . 207
viii. 24, . .
^5j
. 472 xxiv. 18, .
. . 473
viii. 27-ix. 5,
408
xii. 20. I
14,
333* 351 xxiv. 19, .
. . 473
viii. 28,
38
7.393
xii. 21, . .
. 333 xxiv. 19-27,
• . 473
viii. 32, . .
364
xii. 25, . .
275, 311 xxiv. 20-28,
• . 473
viii. 23* ' •
344
xiii. 18,
. 206 xxiv. 30, .
. . 3^6
viii. 34, . .
344
xiii. 20-27,
. 367 xxvi. 14, .
. . 207
viii. 3S-'X. 3, .
407
xiii. 23, .
. 128 >
aCVl. 22, .
. . 291
ix
333
xiii. 28,
:xvi. 23, .
. . 326
ix. I, . . .
421
xiii. 30,
. 477 xxviii. 12, .
. . 311
ix. 1-5. 333*
337. 339.
xiii. 31, .
. 477 xxviii. 29, .
. . 207
401,
417.420
xiii. 32, .
. 473 Romans:
ix. 2, 340.344
.353.421
xiii. 23* .
355. 472 i
. 1-3 . .
• • 372
ix. 3* 349. 353i
,414,421
xiii. 38, .
. 473 J
. 1-26, . .
. . 408
IX. 3— 5» •
. 419
xiii. 39, .
• 473 i
. 3. . . .
3^7* 391
ix. 4. 337.341.
385.408,
xiii. 46,
. 311 i
.4, . .35
5. 367, 391
420,
421.447
xiv. 6, . .
• 477 J
. 7. . • •
. . 372
ix. 5, 263. 277,
ix. 0. . .
332-438
xiv. 7, . .
• 477 J
. 8, . . .
362, 372
339» 340
xiv. 7-27, .
• 477 i
9. • -37
2, 384. 477
ix. 10, . . .
393
xiv. 8-28, .
• 477 J-
10, . .
• • 477
ix. 1 1, . . .
473
xiv. 20,
. 224 i.
i5» . .
• • 349
ix. 12, . . .
473
xiv. 21,
. 224 i
.16, . .
• • 353
ix. '4, . . .
393
xiv. 26, . .
134. 3«6 i
.17, . .
. . 426
ix. 22-24, . .
393
XV. 5, . .
• 3^4 i
. 25, 34c
>» 346, 355.
ix. 25, . .
» •
393
4,426
XV. 34, .
•
. 207
361, 409
ix. 33, . .
34
INDEX OF BIBUCAL PASSAGES
499
X. 333
X. St • • 341. 420. 421
X. 9, . . . 367, 376
X. 12, 353. 355. 384
X. 12-14, . . . 136
X. 13, ... . 426
X. 15, . . . . 426
xi. . . 333» 339. 4i8
xi. I, .... 337
xi. 2, ....
xi.6
xi. 13-16, . . .
xi. 10, ... .
xi. 20, . . . .
xi. 25-36, . . .
x;- 32, 353. 355. 3' ,
xi. 36, 334,341.346.
. „ 353. 354, 362
xii. 18, ... . 349
xiii. 9, . .
xiii. II,
207
393
207
353
339
291
353
84
XIV. 10,
xiv. 23,
xiv. 27,
XV. 6,
XV. 9,
XV. 24-xvi. 17
XV. 30-32, .
XV. 33.
XVI. .
xvi. 16,
XV i. 20,
xvi. 24,
xvi
xvi
I. 25,
ri. 26,
XVI. 27,
1 Corinthians:
. 230
• 453
20S, 442
. 151
346.362
. 362
. 362
. 408
3^6, 346
• '45
316, 318
. 316
. 207
. 448
374, 3^7
136* 317
. 362
. . . 4A2
. . . 362
. . . 126
. • . 349
• . • 330
• • • 330
... 330
• • . 330
' - ' 330
... 330
• • • 330
• • • 330
• • • 330
• • • 352
3'9. 373. 446
... 44
. 323. 326
. . . 224
146, 224
. . . 146
. 367, 442
. . . 321
. • . J2I
viL 5, . . . . 298
vii. 27, ... . 291
vii. 33, .... 473
vii. 34, .... 473
viii. 6, 319, 369. 373,
378, 442, 447, 448
IX. 5,
X.9, .
X. 18,
xi. .
xi. 2,
X. 32,
xi. 3. . 319
xi. 7.
xi 16,
xi. 17,
xi. 22,
xiii. 3,
xiii. M,
xiv. iS,
xiv. 26,
XV. 9,
XV. 15,
XV. 24,
XV. 27,
XV. 28,
XV. 47,
XV. 57,
2 Corinthians :
I, .
I
7. .
14.
21,
23.
24,
ii. .
i. I,
i. 1-17,
i. 2,
i. 3-19.
i. 10,
i. II,
i. 12,
i- 13.
i. 14,
ii. 14,
ii. 15,
3'2
208
349
477
477
373. 376
369
317
224
317
208
146
362
146
367
373
373
373
20S
362
ii. 16,
V. 4,
. . . 3J7
35'. 359, 361
. 218, 473
. 473
. 442
. 346
473. 477
. 473
. 477
. 473
. 473
. 473
• 473
. 473
. 473
. 474
. 474
. 362
. 225
152, 225, 407,
408
344, 345. 3
\^f
iv. 14,
V. II,
v. 14,
V. 15,
V. IG^
v. 18,
F. 19,
387, 395. 433. 445
. 370
. 367
• 346
. 316
. 474
• 474
. 349
372, 448
372, 384
viu I,
vii. 15,
viii. 13.
viii. 14,
viii. 16,
ix. 15,
X.4,
X. 5,
X. 17,
xi. .
xi.8,
xi. 9,
xi. 22,
xi. 31,
. 316
. 340
. 474
• 474
. 362
340, 362
. 474
• 474
. 477
• 477
. 474
. 474
. 337
341. 344, 345.
355. 361, 362. 409,
423, 424
. 136
. 367
xii. 8, .
xiii. 4, .
xiii. 12, ... 477
xiii. 13, ... 477
xiii. 14, . . . 477
Galatians :
i. I, . . 319. 367* 447
... 443
... 443
346,362,410
' ' - 3^7
. . . 3«4
... 311
1.3. •
1.4. .
i. 5, .
!:'>
11. 6, .
ii. 12,
ii. 19,
ii. 20,
lii. 20,
iv. 4,
iv. 5,
V. 1^23
v. 22,
V- 23.
V. 25,
VI. .
vi. 7.
vi. 18.
£PHESIANS:
i. 3. •
1.7, .
i. 10,
L II,
Li|.
1. IQ,
1. 16-23,
i. 17,
i. 19,
i. 20,
i. 20-22
ii.7..
ji.13,
11. 14,
ii. 15,
ii. 20,
"I 3,
iii. o ff.,
iii. 9,
. 474
439.474
. . 383
• . 391
. 391
. . 146
. . 474
. . 474
. • 477
. . 477
. 384
. 346
35 «. 358. 359.
361. 409, 447
. 302
. 474
354.474
. 362
• 373
. 447
. 367
. 367
• 355
• 224
• 344
• 474
. 474
355. 36a
. 434
208
• 434
»8.3^
Soo
g-13. .
128b 131, I3t
ffi-»z» •
. ... 474
8i. tti .
. • . 474
fSLi% ,
. ... 370
fSLzu .
> • 346^302
iT.S
• 2» 3»9b 3^3»
lv.6^ .
> 259^ 319b ^
> . 2qB^ 29S
If. 9b
It. 12, .
. . Ji9^a99
I?.i3, .
. . . . 370
▼•S»« -
3»9b 439. 447t
45*
▼.90b •
. ... 373
. ... 316
▼. 21, <
TLa,
. ... 225
▼Ls
> • • • 349
PRIUPPIAN8:
Li,..
. ... 310
1.2,,. ,
. ... 310
L^ !
• • • 3***
... 44a
Lio, .
... 44a
Ll6b .
► ... 474
ii7, .
: : '^
11. <H • •
► ... 475
3* 319^ 378
it ^11,
ii.i6b .
. ... 442
Hi «3. .
• . 47S476
iii.14, .
• . 475.476
iii. 20,
. ... 453
iii. 21,
• . 442.453
iv. 3. ■
. IIS, 118, 130
iv. 7, ,
, ... 316
iv. 8. ,
. ... 146
iv. 9, .
. ... 316
iv. 20, .
. . 346,362
iv. 21, .
• ... 477
iv. 22, .
. ... 477
COLOSSIANS:
i. 3. • •
... 362
i. 9, . .
... 128
i. 12, .
. ... 362
1. 13. -
. ... 369
1. IS. .
L 15-20,
1.16, .
. ... 254
319. 368, 369
. . 256, 266
i. 19,
. ... 370
i. 20, .
#
... 370
1. 21, .
. ... 475
i. 22, ,
• ... 475
i. 27, .
208, 447
ii. 2,
208, 3«9. 447
ii. 9, .
319. 369. 370
lu 10, .
... 369
111. 8, .
. ... 146
iii. 15, .
111. 10, .
... 316
. ... 316
iii. 17,
. ... 362
m.iM, . . 31^349
hr. ..... 477
hr. 1^ . • • . 4if7
h.^a, • . • 40S
iv. lit • • . • 344
1 TmssALQWUirst
jL t'^tf • • • • 4^
la, . . . 36s, 475
Lj. ..... «S
L lOb . • . . ynf
iL 13, • • • . 362
iLc • ... 384
ii.5 . . - . 475
IL7, . . 3X1.475
iL It 475
iL 12, . • . • 475
iL 13, . . . . ^
ii. 14, • . . . 317
iw. I, . ii8| 124, 130
iv. II, ... . 477
iT. X2, . . • . 477
iv. 12-17* • • . 477
W. i3-i8b ... 477
if. 14, . « • . 442
▼.8>. .... 453
T.9b. . . . . 453
▼.12, . , X18, 130
T. 23, • • . . 316
2THB8SALONIANS:
i-3. 3fe
}. 4. 317
L II, .... 439
L 12, . 439, 447, 453
ii. I, . . 118, 130
ii. 8, .... 440
ii. 10, ... . 477
ii. II, . . . . 477
ii. 11-16, . . . 477
ii. 12-17, . . • 477
ii. 13. . . 225, 362
ii. 14, ... . 22c
iii. 3, . . . . 31S
iii. 16, ... . 316
I Timothy:
i. I, . . . 447, 448
i. 2, 447
i. 12, . . 306, 342
i. 15 278
i. 17. . 340, 346, 354.
362. 374
ii. 3-5, . . 447, 448
ii. 5. • 319. 326, 373.
443
ii. 6, . . 326,443
iii. 5, . . 317, 318
iii. I J 318
iii. 10, . 208, 250, 284,
299, 392, 447
iv. 10, ... . 448
V. 21, . 373.439.447
vi. 3, .... 325
vi. 13-16* ... 447
1L14. .
^ I4*ltib
▼L i4-26b
▼i. ijL
tLiS
▼L21,
vi. 22,
L2,.
L8b .
i-9b .
LiOb
iL8,
iL22,
Hl.9b
IT. I, .
ir.Sb
ir. t6b
ir.tS^
Trrus:
Lt. .
Li^
i-3. •
L4, .
L5, •
iL3.
iLiOb
iLxi,
iLi3.
iLi4.
iiL 3-7,
i«.4.
iii. 4-6,
Philemon
1.4,
i. II,
i. 12,
i. 18,
i. 19,
i. 19-22,
i. 20-23,
i. 23,
i. 24,
i. 25, ,
Hebrews
1. I,
i. 2, .
1.3. .
1. 6, .
i.8. .
1.9. .
11.7,
ii. 9,
• • •
111.4,
• • • ^
111. 9,
iii. 10,
iv. 4,
V.
vii. I,
vii. 20,
▼ii. 21,
.•
... 440
. . . 224
%iZm ^Ji6u 162
J^^^ JT*** J*^^
• • 44S
. . 44;
. 44S
418. 4S3
: :rd
449,449^456
3<9. 39s. 403,
4i2,439-4sr
443i446
• . 44§
. . 456
373.448
362
475
475
475
475
47 S
475
475
475
475
475
384
441,442
. 364
. 364
. 230
278, 3*8, 329
346
475
475
A77
477
3"
475
475
INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES
S°K
viL26, .
164, 166
ii. 28, . .
» i
. . 324
iz.28, .
• 0 ^53
iii. 8-v. 21,
• 330
Z. II, .
289, 291
111. 16^ . .
' • 329
X. 22, .
• •, '♦^^
iii. 25, • ,
> . 114
. . 370
X.23, ,
226, 476
iv. 2, . .
XII. 20, .
. . 230
iv.9, . ,
. . 284
xii. 22,
. . 476
IV. 11-17, .
. . 262
xii. 23, ,
• . 476
V. I, . . .
K 4
. . 376
xiii. 20,
. . 3>6
V.4-I2, .
> 1
. . 460
xiii. 21,
346, 363
V. 7, . . 165,
207,304.
James:
307, 314. 329-33i»
i. S. •
. . 114
458-463
1. 17,
27s. 3"
V. 8, . 165, 207, 329-
111. 8, .
. . 166
33»
• ••
111. 9, ,
. . 316
▼. 16, . 11
^4.
"S "8,
V.9. • •
. • 291
121, 126^ 130, 132,
I Peter:
»34
1.3. • -
• 3SJ
^ 359. 362
V. 20, .
1
364,457
J-s* •
• . 453
2 John:
i.18, .
207, 302
1.5,. . .
118, 130
i. 19, .
287, 302
1.7, . . .
fe i
• . 345
11. 7, .
. . 476
3 John:
ii. 8, .
. . 476
L 14, . .
t i
• . 477
iii. 15,
. 126
, 208, 316,
476
i. 15. •
Jude:
1
. . 477
iii. 16^ .
iii. 20,
. . 476
210, 218
i. 4, . . .
i. IS. • «
i 1
. . 454
. . 166
iv. I,
» ■
. . 326
i. 25, . 13
'!»
208,346,
iv. II, .
' 346* 3SSf 3^3*
448
410
Revelation
V. 2, . ,
V. II, .
•
1 •
• • 3^S
. . 346
1.4, .. .
i. 5. . .
1
1 4
. . 383
, . 206
2 Peter:
•# •
346* 363
i. I, . .
• 364, 439. 4S4
i.7, . .
. . 340
i. i6k .
•
. . 456
i.8. . . .
208, 383
210, 212
ii.9,.
• •
. . 446
1.9, . . ,
lu 10,
1 «
. . 446
i. II, .
210^ 218
ii. 13» -
1 •
275.3"
ii. 3, . .
210^ 2X8
ui. 10, .
1 •
. . 191
ii. 10, . .
. . 164
iii. 12, ,
> •
• . 442
ii. 20, . .
> . 210
iii. 18, .
> •
34^363
ii.24, . ,
. . 218
I John:
1 1, . ,
ii.27, . .
. . 476
•
• . 364
ii.28, . <
. . 476
ii.12, .
•
• . 324
• • •
111. 2, • .
. • 210
Ii.13, ,
1 •
• • 476
iiL4, . .
. . 164
fa. 14, .
•
• • 476
iiL20^ . .
. . 291
g.23. ,
> •
206,224
iv. 3, . ,
, . 224
fl.a7. -
• •
• • 324
. . 383
iv. II,
V. 5,.
V. 8, .
V. 10,
V. 12,
V. 13,
V. 14,
vi. II,
vii. 10,
vii. 12,
vii. 15,
ix.4,
X. II,
xi. .
xi. 3,
xi. o,
xi. II,
xi. 12,
4 15.
XI. 17,
xi. 19,
xii. .
xii. 4,
xii. 18,
■ • •
Xlll. .
xiii. I,
xiv. 14,
XV. 3,
xvi. 5,
XVll. I,
xvii. 8,
xvii. 9,
xvii. 10,
xvii. 14,
xvii. 16,
xvii. 17,
xviii. 2,
xviii. 9,
xviii. 12,
xviii. 16,
xviiL 17,
xviii. 22,
xix. 9, •
xix. 17,
xix. 20,.
xxi. 19^.
xxii. 14,
xdLi8^
409
344
164
210, 218
. 409
• ^ i
210, 218
V 123
365
345
164
123
164
477
477
149
164, 166
t 164
477
3§3
283
477
291
477
477
477
164
210, 218, 3^4
210, 218, 383
. 164
210, 218
. 476
. 476
. 164
210, 218
• 325
210, 218
164, 166
. 164
. 476
. 476
. 223
• 325
166,456
166
164
20S
239
■y
8 aOM Oti 07S 272
0
Li
CANCtLir
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11